34 C.F.R. § 668.94

Limitation

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

A limitation may include, as appropriate to the Title IV, HEA program in question—

(a) A limit on the number or percentage of students enrolled in an institution who may receive Title IV, HEA program funds;

(b) A limit, for a stated period of time, on the percentage of an institution's total receipts from tuition and fees derived from Title IV, HEA program funds;

(d) A limit on the number of borrower or loan accounts that a third-party servicer may service under a contract with an institution;

(e) A limit on the responsibilities that a third-party servicer may perform under a contract with an institution;

(f) A requirement for a third-party servicer to perform additional responsibilities under a contract with an institution;

(g) A requirement that an institution obtain surety, in a specified amount, to assure its ability to meet its financial obligations to students who receive Title IV, HEA program funds;

(h) A change in the participation status of the institution from fully certified to participate to provisionally certified to participate under § 668.13(c).

(i) A requirement that a third-party servicer obtain surety, in a specified amount, to assure the servicer's ability to meet the servicer's financial obligations under a contract; or

(j) Other conditions as may be determined by the Secretary to be reasonable and appropriate.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1094) [59 FR 22450, Apr. 29, 1994. 81 FR 76072, Nov. 1, 2016. Redesignated at 82 FR 6257, Jan. 17, 2017]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2023 · leading case: Armstrong v. Accrediting Council for Continuing Educ. & TrainIng, Inc., 832 F. Supp. 419 (D.D.C. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Armstrong v. Accrediting Council for Continuing Educ. & TrainIng, Inc., 832 F. Supp. 419 (D.D.C. 1993). “and prohibits further dis *427 bursements____” 34 C.F.R. § 668.94 (a) (emphases added). There is no indication that, under the regulations, a termination should have a retroactive effect.”

Armstrong v. Accrediting Council for Continuing Educ. & Training, Inc., 980 F. Supp. 53 (D.D.C. 1997). “Additionally, 34 C.F.R. § 668.94 (“Termination”) provides only for prospective changes, proscribing future acts by the institution such as making new obligations, or making further guarantee commitments.”

Elizabeth Grady Sch. of Esthetics & Massage Therapy v. Cardona (D. Mass. 2023). · cites it 2× “6 The APA provides that the Court [i]t is axiomatic that the Department’s rejection of the School’s claim for reimbursement, stop payment order, determination that the School has lost its eligibility, and requirement that the School obtain surety constitute limitations under 34…”

Beth Jacob Hebrew Teachers Coll. v. Riley, 73 F. Supp. 2d 262 (E.D.N.Y 1999). “34 C.F.R. § 668.94 (a). *269 Indeed, DOE instituted termination proceedings against Beth Jacob in 1993.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.