Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

1

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

AFFORDABILITY AND STUDENT LOANS COMMITTEE

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING SESSION 1, DAY 3, AFTERNOON

OCTOBER 6, 2021

On the 6th day of October, 2021, the

following meeting was held virtually from 1:00 p.m. to

4:00 p.m., before Andrea González, Shorthand Reporter

in the state of New Jersey.
2

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. TOTONCHI: Welcome back, everyone. I 

hope everyone had a good lunch and a good break, and is 

ready to dive back into the thorough discussion we’ve 

been having. Before we dive back into our borrower 

defense subtopics, I just want to quickly recognize

Noelia Gonzalez. She has stepped up and she’s been 

serving at the table on behalf of minority serving 

institutions and will continue to be doing so going 

forward in this negotiation, so thank you, Noelia, for 

your service on this committee.

MS. GONZALEZ: You’re welcome.

MR. TOTONCHI: So, let’s dive back into the 

topics. Review what we have -- a few subtopics left on 

the borrower defense issue, okay? Specifically, under 

borrower defense post adjudication, we have one more 

subtopic: the reconsideration process. Jennifer, could 

you start us off on that? 

MS. HONG: Sure, I’d be happy to. Thank you,

Emil. Let me just pull it up. Okay. So, this is our 

second and our last issue on issue paper number seven 

regarding post adjudication. We just went over the 

presumption of full relief, and now the second subtopic 

is to establish a reconsideration process that a borrower

may pursue if a BD claim is denied or partial relief is 
3

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

granted. Excuse me. 

To request reconsideration, the borrower 

would need to provide additional evidence or request 

adjudication under a specific State standard and specify 

the basis for using the State standard instead of the 

federal standard. There would be timeframes attached to 

this process and, while we review the BD claim, the 

borrower’s loans would remain in forbearance.

The Department would then review the 

reconsideration request and issue a decision. If after 

the process the borrower’s claim is still denied, the 

borrower would not enter repayment until 90 days after 

adjudication of their reconsideration. And that is to 

give them adequate time to enter repayment. 

Happy to hear your thoughts on the 

reconsideration process.

MR. TOTONCHI: Right. Thank you. Joe, you’re 

up first.

MR. SANDERS: Thanks. So, State AGs, Eric 

and I specifically, discussed the State law standard last 

night. We talked with some other State AGs that are 

involved in this issue and -- our big problems with this 

-- the State law standard and the reconsideration process 

-- the framing that Jennifer used yesterday where she 

said what we want to create is a strong federal floor 
4

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

with the possibility depending on the state that the 

state has a higher ceiling for student protections. That 

concept is something that we could potentially get 

behind. 

The major stumbling block for us is this 

reconsideration process. If there was some way that the 

federal standard and the State law standard could be 

considered in one go, right? So, for efficiency’s sake, 

as the Department’s reviewing, and they’re going to start 

with the State -- with the federal standard -- review it 

under that and make a determination there so as to have 

to avoid considering 50 State laws on each one. 

But then, if denial occurs under the 

federal standard they review automatically under the 

State law standard -- that’s something we could work 

with. Then we would need to see specific language there, 

but this concept that people have to be denied first and 

then reapply does not make sense to us. 

Number one: you’re going to get a lot of 

borrowers that just aren’t going to do the second step, 

right? They’re going to be like, “I’m denied. I’m out. 

I’m not going to have time to follow through,” whatever 

it might be, right? The more administrative hurdles you 

put up, the less relief borrowers can --

Even if you’re talking about, say, a State 
5

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

AG that’s making a group application, it doesn’t 

conceptually make sense for me to have to make an 

application that I know is going to be denied, and then 

make another application following that on the State law 

standard. It’s like -- for an attorney, it’s like if you 

were going to -- I’m going to take the first motion 

knowing I am going to lose, and then I’m going to make 

the second motion, right? This doesn’t -- conceptually --

it doesn’t follow. So, I think that we could work with 

the concept -- the framework that Jennifer put forward --

strong federal floor with the option for a higher State 

ceiling on the State law standard, but we can’t get 

behind a reconsideration process that’s bifurcated.

MR. TOTONCHI: Any initial comments? 

Jennifer.

MS. HONG: Yeah. I just wanted to affirm the 

idea again, to Joe’s comment, that we are looking to 

encompass these concepts from States that have strong 

consumer protection laws and incorporate that into the 

process, into a federal standard. 

You talked about efficiency. I mean, that’s 

exactly what we’re trying to build into this process. And 

by putting a State -- a review of State law on the front 

end, we felt like that would actually slow things down 

rather than help, again, and we talked about the various 
6

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

State standards that are available. And we’ve put it on 

the back and in the reconsideration process. With --

paired with a strong federal standard, expressly to have 

that option available in the off-chance that a borrower 

is denied based on the federal standard. 

In other words, if we have a strong federal 

standard, there would not be this need to choose between 

denial and reconsideration. It is just really to just 

wrap it up on the back end just to give borrowers that 

option, should they avail themselves of it -- should they 

need to avail themselves of it. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. I do -- I see you, 

Justin, I see you, Josh, but Joe, do you have an 

immediate follow-up? 

MR. SANDERS: Yeah, and I’ll be quick. We 

very much appreciate the idea of creating a strong 

federal floor and pulling that from strong State law. I 

had multiple people telling me last night, “Hey, that 

sounds great. We want to get involved. We’ll help the 

Department do that. Just reach out and let us know.”

I am skeptical, though. That’s a big job, 

and I’m skeptical that you’re going to be able to captur

everything in that federal standard, right? We’re talkin

about large bodies of law, which is part of your 

hesitancy to be reviewing it all the time.

e 

g 
7

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

I want to hear from Josh and other borrower 

advocates on this, but I -- that administrative burden of 

the refiling gives us pause. And so, I thought our 

discussion yesterday was really helpful, but that’s an 

area where we still have concerns.

MR. TOTONCHI: Justin. 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Yeah. Thank you, Emil. I 

want to hit on several points here. So, first is, we’re 

supportive of bringing back a reconsideration process 

broadly. So, I just want to put that out there.

I think the fact that currently there is 

one lacking really speaks to the interests that prevailed 

last time these regulations were considered. And it’s 

pretty concerning. And I think I’d like to just, maybe, 

lead off with a quote here from an Army veteran that, I 

think, kind of gets at some of these ideas around appeal, 

especially in the last few years:

“The whole situation is a mess from the 

initial fraud and targeting to how long I’ve had to wait 

for a decision on my claim, and then the blanket denial 

by the past Department of Education leadership of my 

claim. I made a solid case and submitted sufficient 

evidence, and then to have that dismissed by saying there 

was a failure to make a legal claim is a slap in the 

face.”
8

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

And I think that’s a really important 

quote, not just when we’re talking about reestablishing 

our reconsideration standard, but what that 

reconsideration standard should include. Reconsideration 

is a pretty basic procedural opportunity for folks to 

address what they think are concerns and how a decision 

was previously made. And it exists all across government 

judicial system. 

So, it’s kind of baffling why this was 

removed. But I also think it’s important to consider what 

is part of the reconsideration process. It sounds like 

the Department is considering new evidence. We support 

that, but particularly in light of how some of these 

decisions have been made in the past few years, we think 

that perhaps the scope of reconsideration should be 

expanded to things like procedural error and 

misapplication of the standard to the facts presented by 

the borrower.

So, I think I would just leave the 

Department with that and I would love any feedback on how 

we kind of arrived at just new evidence. Thanks.

MR. TOTONCHI: Okay. Thank you, Justin. 

Josh. 

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. First, I’ll thank 

Justin for sharing that veteran’s story, it was a 
9

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

powerful statement. And I’m glad that we all got to hear 

it. 

So, I’m going to echo some of what Joe --

some of what Justin said just to start. We are very much 

in support of a reconsideration process, as Justin 

indicated it. It is a routine right across government --

administrative law across the government. 

We continue to be concerned though that, to 

the extent there’s going to be a State standard, it’s 

only limited to the reconsideration process. It is just 

adding an additional burden to the borrower after they’re 

denied. And I go back to what I said yesterday, that if 

it’s going to be the basis of a borrower defense claim, 

then make it a basis of the borrower defense claim 

(inaudible).

I think Justin just hit on a really 

important point about what’s included in the 

reconsideration process. I also think it’s worth asking 

and thinking about who is making the reconsideration 

decision. And I would be interested in hearing from the 

Department whether it’s just going to be an entity within 

FSA, who’s deciding the claims, and then having a 

discussion over whether that is the best unit to be 

making the reconsideration decisions.

The final thing I would note is, going back
10

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

to the discussion we were having earlier about the 

unreasonable delays that the Department has been -- the 

Department has imposed on people for years (interposing) 

we’re just deciding the (interposing).

MR. TOTONCHI: Excuse me. Hold on one 

second. Someone has their mic on that shouldn’t have 

their mic on. I just want to make sure you’re heard, 

Josh. Is it fixed? Thank you. Go ahead, Josh.

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. I appreciate that. 

So, in addition to concerns about the time it takes the 

Department to decide the claim in the first instance, 

obviously this raises new concerns about how long the 

reconsideration process is going to be. And then so we 

would ask that the Department also include not only a 

timeframe by which it must receive a request for 

reconsideration, but also a timeframe for when it’s going 

to decide that reconsideration.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Josh. Marjorie.

MS. DORIME-WILLIAMS: So, I just want to 

echo Josh’s sentiments, but specifically looking to this 

idea of a State standard -- it is the understanding that 

if this wasn’t filed from the borrower before, then they 

would go find an additional or different State standard 

to then file for reconsideration? And if that’s the case, 

how would a -- I mean, I don’t even know that 
11

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

information, so how would borrowers have access to that 

information or know where to go to get the information to 

find a State standard to then apply for reconsideration?

So, it seems -- again, I think that this is 

a great idea in principle, but I think the specifics of 

that only add additional burdens to the borrowers. And if 

they’re in this position, it seems like an unnecessary 

step. And, while I understand the complexities of legal 

standing in states are different, if there’s a way to 

maybe incorporate that beforehand or offer that 

information to borrowers beforehand, I think that that 

would make this process more simple.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Marjorie. Jen, do you 

have any initial comments?

MS. HONG: Yeah, just an issue real quick. I 

mean, everything you described, Marjorie, is why we left 

it off of the front end and try -- and are focusing on 

building a strong federal standard on the front end, it’s 

because it is more difficult for borrowers and it’s going 

to add time and inefficiencies to the process. 

But we did want to preserve that option on 

the back end for reconsideration, which hopefully, if we 

get it right -- if we get the federal standard right --

this is not -- it’s not an option that students will need 

to avail themselves of frequently.
12

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. Justin.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Thanks, Emil. I want to 

circle back to the State standard and flag something that 

I’m a little confused, and I don’t think has been brought 

up yet. Of course, it looks like the State standard may 

be a basis for reconsideration here.

But there’s this language about the 

borrower needing to specify the basis for using the State 

standard instead of the federal standard.

I’m just curious what exactly that means, 

because it seems to me we’re already in the 

reconsideration process because, under the current 

version of the regs as proposed, the federal standard 

presumably didn’t work for the borrower or they didn’t 

meet the federal standards.

So, what is -- exactly what is the 

Department contemplating when they’re saying that this --

that the borrower needs to -- rather than a State 

standard just being simply an accepted basis, which I 

thought it was, it seems like there’s almost an 

additional step here that they need to specify the basis 

for using it instead of the federal standard, which, 

again, seems like it’s already -- didn’t work, so -- 

MS. HONG: Yeah. No, I think, Justin, that’s 

a good point. I -- no, it’s not meant to be an additional 
13

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

burden for the borrower. If we can think aspirationally -

- if we’re trying to subsume a strong – all the 

principles that Joe talked about in terms of strong State 

law in a federal standard, we would want to know if there 

is a stronger State standard that a borrower is using --

the basis of that State standard, what would they presume 

would be different from the review that they would get 

from the State standard and from the federal standard, 

just finding that out. That’s all that language is 

alluding to.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, both. Just noting 

Suzanne is coming to the table on behalf of the State 

regulators. Please proceed.

MS. MARTINDALE: Thank you. So, yeah, I 

mean, I obviously tend to agree with the comments of my 

colleague from Illinois here. There are various places 

through the Higher Education Act where State law is 

referenced and contemplated, and the Department does have 

to analyze 50 State laws. So, I think -- thinking about 

principles of federalism here would make sense to me to 

set a strong federal floor that ensures a baseline of 

protections for student borrowers. And then any other 

stronger yet consistent State laws could also be 

considered on first blush when a borrower applies. 

I’ve said this yesterday, I will say it 
14

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

again today. The challenge of talking about the borrower 

defense sub-issues is that they really are interrelated, 

so we have to think about how the parts fit together. And 

if we all share an interest in ensuring that these claims 

are adjudicated in a thoughtful and prompt manner, and 

that means trying to figure out where to simplify.

But, I mean -- if we’re talking about an 

additional step with partial relief, that’s going to 

complicate -- that’s going to delay the reconsideration 

process. I think that some sort of appeal rights should 

be there, but I think there are some questions here 

about, again, how is this really going to work in 

practice. 

Then, by contrast, we were just talking 

earlier about group discharge, which could alleviate the 

need for an individual borrower to have to utilize this 

process because hopefully there will be automatic group 

discharges that the Department can take care of based on 

the evidence they have, or a State AG, or a debt 

collective could file, and then group discharges would 

take care of some of these issues. 

But I am concerned about sort of the 

tensions here between the ways in which we’re trying to 

better automate and streamline the processes versus the 

ways in which we are creating some of these extra hurdles 
15

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

that will really hit individual borrowers who may be less 

likely to have any assistance in trying to navigate this 

process.

So, and I will also note, when -- back when 

the Department was particularly in the calendar year 2016 

really trying to ramp up consideration and adjudication 

of claims, particularly from Corinthian borrowers, there 

was a special master, there was a team of attorneys who 

were actually reviewing the applications that were 

submitted, and a backlog was partly cleared.

And then, of course, with a change of 

administration, there was a cessation, and that’s led to 

some of the borrowers who we have heard from throughout 

this process being stuck in limbo for many years, and we 

have heard --

MR. ROBERTS: 30 seconds.

MS. MARTINDALE: -- we’ve heard about the 

harm that has caused, and so I think at some point we 

should also talk about who at the Department is

adjudicating these claims, but if you have a team of 

attorneys doing it, I think they can analyze federal 

versus California law, for example. Thank you.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Suzanne. I see 

Daniel and Heather have their hands up. We’ll likely move 

to a temperature check on tentative agreement on this 
16

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

concept after that. Daniel.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Thank you. I want to echo 

the question or concern around group versus individual, 

and this -- Suzanne raises this point. This comes 

actually from my alternate, who raises a very good point, 

which is: on the grounds for reconsideration, currently, 

the only ground for reconsideration listed is additional 

evidence or request adjudication under a specific State 

standard. So, I would like to suggest that a call-out is 

if a borrower’s claim is denied as part of a group 

process, if the group claim is denied -- that the 

individual student be allowed to submit an individual 

claim, if they haven’t done so before, and then that’d be 

specifically called out as an option under the 

reconsideration process. So, if the group claim doesn’t 

reach satisfactory proof or standards of evidence or 

standards of proof, that the individual can add 

subsequently additional information and have their 

requests reconsidered on an individualized basis.

MR. TOTONCHI: Daniel, if you could capture 

that in the chat, that would be appreciated.

MR. BARKOWITZ: I have done so. Thank you, 

Emil.

MR. TOTONCHI: Oh, okay. Great. Heather.

MS. PERFETTI: Thank you. So, I just had a 
17

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

question about the process that has been proposed. Is it 

intended to offer a reconsideration process of the 

decision using the federal standard to provide additional 

evidence and what other criteria may need to be met or 

pursue a reconsideration under a specific State standard? 

Is it either or (audio) is it first being reconsidered 

under the federal standard for reconsideration, and then, 

there’s an additional process?

MS. HONG: No, it’s either or, and it’s for 

-- I mean, I know that we’re getting to conditions for 

reconsideration. This is written intentionally openended, but yes, I mean, it could be procedural, it could 

be substantive.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you all. Let’s take a 

temperature check on this concept. Oh, Dixie, I see your 

hand up. We’ll take your comments and then we’ll take the

temperature check, okay?

MS. SAMANIEGO: Yeah, so, I had a quick 

question for the Department of Education. So, if the 

person gets denied in the reconsideration process, what 

happens to their debt that was paused, due to 

forbearance? Does the Department of Education immediately

collect the debt for student loan payments, immediately 

as the decision is made? Or what kind of process is that?

Yeah, because I’m imagining that it would be really 
18

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

horrible if they didn’t get -- they applied for the 

reconsideration process, they got denied again, and then 

they have to pay however many thousands of dollars on the 

spot, which most likely they don’t already have.

MS. HONG: Absolutely. Thank you, Dixie. We 

went over that earlier. It’s -- if it’s denied, it’s 90 

days. I think that -- it’s written in the previous paper, 

but they have -- they definitely have a grace period 

before going into repayment.

MR. TOTONCHI: Okay. Thank you all. Let’s 

take a temperature check on tentative agreement. Again, 

this signifies agreement. This signifies that, at a 

minimum, you can live with it and support it. This 

signifies serious disagreement, okay?

Let me see your thumbs on this concept. I 

see several thumbs down. If there’s a point that you have 

not raised yet as to the reason why you’re thumbs down, 

I’d like Joe and Josh -- I know you’ve vocalized -- let 

me call on if it’s okay. Jessica, can you voice your --

why you’re thumbs down?

MS. BARRY: Sure, I just think this needs 

more discussion before I can make a decision on how I

stand. It seems like that there’s still a lot of 

questions that need to be resolved. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Is there anyone else? Because 
19

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

there were a number of thumbs down. That was kind of 

quick. Anyone else wants to succinctly state why they 

were thumbs down? Or if you felt it like you’ve been 

heard already, there’s no need. Okay, we can move along 

then.

We will be moving to issue eight: “Borrower 

defense recovery from institutions.” The first subtopic 

of this issue is separating borrower recoupment process. 

Jennifer, if you could take us through this, please.

MS. HONG: Sure. So, issue paper number 

eight as last -- excuse me, BD issue paper pertained to 

recovery from institutions. The Secretary has the right 

to recover from institutions the amount of relief granted 

to borrowers under a successful BD claim.

We’ve had different iterations throughout 

the years and how we would do this and we wanted to 

clarify the process for recovery, and adopt a clear 

limitations period. (audio) to clarify a process, we 

wanted to balance reasonable adjudication timeframes for 

borrowers with sufficient due process for institutions.

Firstly, we proposed to separate the 

process of institutional recoupment from the BD approval 

process. Also notable is that this proposed process would 

apply to new loans issued after the effective date of 

this rule. And then we -- yeah, we could just talk about 
20

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

all of this together, but second after the Department 

has approved the BD claim, we would determine whether to 

seek recoupment and the amount we would seek to recoup.

This amount could be no greater than the 

amount of approved discharges but could also be less. The 

Department would generate a Program Review Report with 

all relevant information regarding the BD claim as well 

as liability amount that the institution would have the 

opportunity to respond to as with any other program 

review. 

The Department will then take into account 

the institution’s response and issue a final program 

review determination. The liabilities identified in the 

final program review are appealable to the Office of 

Hearings and Appeals and then to the Secretary, as 

applicable.

And then finally we are proposing adopting 

a six-year limitations period. The clock would stop when 

the institution is notified of claims during the 

institutional response process.

Eager to hear your thoughts on a recoupment 

process.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Jennifer. Daniel.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Jennifer, can I ask a 

question for clarification? The six-year limitation is 
21

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

from what date? Is that from the date the loan is made, 

from the date the student enrolled? When does the clock 

begin to tick?

MS. HONG: I would assume that that would 

tick once the decision is issued.

MR. BARKOWITZ: So, again, my conclusion if 

that is true, is if we are in fact extending the ability 

to claim to 30 years, you’re talking about six years from 

the 30th year of repayment? 

So, I presume there’s -- the limitation 

here has to be related in some way to when the loan was 

originated, not to when the claim is filed, but if not, I 

would argue that, again, going back to the question 

around documentary evidence, it can be very hard to 

provide documentary evidence six years after the 

twentieth year of repayment. 

MS. HONG: Right. We’re going away from the 

long origination date. We can circle back with you, but 

your concern is noted.

MR. TOTONCHI: Daniel, if you could capture 

it in the chat, that would be helpful. Thank you so much. 

Jessica.

MS. BARRY: Yeah, I have a couple of 

questions. First about the program review. And -- which 

office would manage the process? And would it be a 
22

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

Department staff or contractor that would be developing 

the program review report? 

And then, one last question about that, how 

much time would the institution have to respond to the 

program report -- program review? 

MS. HONG: So, it is our office of Federal 

Student Aid that issues a program review. There are 

timeframes attached for institutional response to the 

program review. We can get back to you on what that 

standard timeframe is.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. Josh. 

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. I just want to say 

that the legal aid community strongly supports the 

Department’s proposal to decouple the borrower defense 

decision with the recovery from institutions. We do think 

that this decoupling is essential for borrowers to get 

swift decisions and relief from their borrower defense 

claims.

MR. TOTONCHI: Noelia. Noelia, did you hear 

me calling you? I apologize if you didn’t hear me.

MS. GONZALEZ: Yeah, but my hand’s not up.

MR. TOTONCHI: Oh, it’s not, okay. I 

apologize. You’re in the upper left-hand corner.

MR. TOTONCHI: Okay. Well, this stage, folks 

-- Oh, Jessica, you have your hand up.
23

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

MS. BARRY: Yeah, just one more thing. I 

wonder if we could consider giving institutions the 

ability to respond even if it is from a previous action. 

I think they should have another chance to respond 

because, in some cases, they may be getting an 

assessment of liabilities that is going to bankrupt the 

school. I mean, these are serious situations, so I 

wondered if another institutional response could be 

considered.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Jessica. If you 

could note that in the chat, that would be great. 

Heather.

MS. PERFETTI: I think that goes along the 

lines of the comment I was going to make about just basic 

elements of due process for institutions as well. And I 

probably don’t know enough about the individual and the 

group process claims, so I just raised this again, 

whether the timeline is different depending on if it’s an 

individual claim or a group process, or needs to be. 

And then I just raised the question about 

the role of the accrediting agency that may oversee the 

institution as well. It’s not clear that there is a role 

here, but I just want to raise that to see if there was 

some kind of piece for the accrediting agencies. 

MR. TOTONCHI: If you could note that in the 
24

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

chat, that would be great, Heather, thank you. Misty. Oh, 

Jen, actually, initially Jennifer had her hand up. Please 

go ahead, Jen.

MS. HONG: Yeah, just initially I just want 

to reaffirm -- yes, there would be a role for the 

accrediting agency. We would assume that we would be in 

close contact with the accrediting agency if the 

accrediting agency had accredited this institution every 

step of the way.

And just to be clear, there is an 

institutional response built into the program review. If 

I’m understanding, Jessica, you’re asking for one in 

another response period in addition to that?

MS. BARRY: I’m actually saying in response 

to a final program review.

MS. HONG: Okay. Thank you.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. Misty.

MS. SABOUNEH: Thank you. So, to kind of 

build on that and try (audio) on this, I just want to 

make sure -- for my constituency group we do have a lot

of smaller schools represented here that -- to other 

people’s comments -- this could have a really big 

financial impact. Of the 1700 private nonprofit degreegranting colleges, 332 of them have less than 250 

students. And a lot of these are minority serving 
25

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

historically black colleges.

So, a couple of points to be made, as 

Jessica said, we would like to make sure that there’s an 

opportunity to provide updated information if the 

determination is being made based on a prior program 

review and have that new information be looked at before 

a final determination is made.

There’s probably some additional 

conversation. Looks like we have some follow-up around 

the limitation period, but I think it would make sense if 

this period was the date the student was no longer at the 

institution. I think the timeframe is five years now, so 

we’re proposing six. Obviously, preference would be five 

there.

And then, the other clarifying point -- so, 

the sentence about the amount being recouped. So, this is 

only up to the amount of the loans taken out by the 

student. Is that correct? Okay, so it wouldn’t (audio).

MS. HONG: Yes.

MS. SABOUNEH: Okay. Thank you.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Misty. Michaela.

MS. MARTIN: Yeah, I just wanted to just 

clarify that this is not in any way tied to the other 

process. Only because it came up earlier and I have a 

feeling it’s going to keep coming up, that we’re putting 
26

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

these two together where we’re like bankrupt schools or 

not forgive students loan borrowers. 

And I just really want to also point out 

that students can’t file bankruptcy on their student 

loans. So, when we’re talking about that, in this 

situation there’s only one interested party here that can 

actually file bankruptcy and have relief from the debt 

that’s attached to this.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Michaela. Jessica, 

please proceed.

MS. BARRY: Sure. I want to support Misty’s 

five-year comment. We agree with that. And then there’s 

someone from my constituency that has a question. I want 

to read it exact so I get it right.

But what does the appeals process look like 

with regard to the recovery from institutions? Can you 

help us understand the exact process?

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you for that question. 

Please write it in the comments. I see we have no other 

hands on this issue.

I’d like to take a temperature check on 

tentative agreement on this concept. Can I please see 

your thumbs? Three thumbs down. Misty, Daniel, Jessica, 

please succinctly state the objections.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Any further --
27

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

MR. TOTONCHI: Sorry, sorry. Misty first. 

Then Daniel, then Jessica.

MS. SABOUNEH: Just two things that I was 

just going over. I think they’re just defining that 

timeframe and just discussing the appeal process for 

using a program review.

MS. BARRY: And I agree with Misty, but I 

would also add giving schools the opportunity to respond 

again after a final program review.

MR. TOTONCHI: Daniel, anything to add?

MR. BARKOWITZ: I would want more 

clarification on when the six-year timeframe begins.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. Okay, then let’s 

move on to our final subtopic for borrower defense. I --

Jennifer, if you could take us through the limitation 

period.

MS. JEFFRIES: I just saw an interjector had 

a hand up.

MR. TOTONCHI: Yeah. I saw the hand and then 

I saw it go down.

MS. JEFFRIES: Oh, okay. 

MR. TOTONCHI: So thanks, Cindy. Jennifer, 

if you could take us through the limitation period 

subtopic.

MS. HONG: So, so, we actually just 
28

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

encompassed that conversation, but Daniel, I just wanted 

to answer your question on when it begins. It begins when 

the application was filed. So, the six-year limitation 

period begins when the application is filed. (audio).

MR. BARKOWITZ: If I can respond, I’ll 

reiterate my concern then that, because of the other 

conversation on extending the ability for a student to 

file a borrower defense claim to any point during the 

repayment period, that then opens this up to request for 

documentation. Could be 15 years after the loan 

origination, could be up to 30 or more years after loan 

origination. 

So, I would strongly urge the Department to 

think carefully about what’s a reasonable timeframe for 

response if we’re going to accrue a penalty against an 

institution for an action that they can’t even respond to 

because they don’t have documentation available to 

respond to that. 

I just think that that sets an unreasonable 

standard. I completely understand the Department’s desire 

to collect from institutions that behave badly. I’m not 

minimizing that at all.

But there needs to be an ability for an 

institution to respond, and the way this is set up, if 

it’s six years from the date of the filing, it doesn’t 
29

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

give institutions any ability -- if it’s in fact much 

later in the cycle -- to respond to that action. So, that 

would be my request.

MR. TOTONCHI: Jen, if you have an initial 

comment, please go -- proceed and then I’m going to call 

on myself.

MS. HONG: Great. Thank you for that, 

Daniel. Emil, sorry to confuse things. I had actually 

wrapped up the summary of both issues that were so 

discreet, but we can take a temperature check on each of 

them still if you’d like that info. Unless people want to 

just add limitations period. 

MR. TOTONCHI: I’d defer to the committee. 

If you have indeed consolidated the discussion and 

there’s nothing else -- I do see Suzanne’s hand. I just 

want to know. We -- my instinct is -- if the Department 

of Ed needs further guidance on this and would like a 

temperature check, we will take it. So, Jennifer, you let

us know. But I’ll go to Suzanne momentarily. I’ll come 

back to that question.

MS. MARTINDALE: It’ll be real quick. I just 

want to say I have no problem with there being a 

limitations period on recouping against the school. I 

think that that makes sense.

Here, the concern’s about document 
30

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

retention, and so forth I think the other reason why many 

of us who have interacted with student borrowers, are 

student borrowers, are so strongly committed to seeing 

there being no limitations period for the borrower is 

that -- I don’t -- I think maybe we’ve said this before, 

I forget, but there’s no statute of limitations on 

collecting federal student loans. They follow you to your 

grave, and that’s why this is so important. 

That’s also why I will reiterate support 

from bifurcating the process. And then the question is 

finding the reasonable amount of time to expect schools 

to retain the kind of evidence or other documents they 

would need to respond to a recruitment request. But I 

think, at the end of the day, it may just be the case 

that the school cannot be recouped against because they 

don’t have the information, and that’s -- I think we can 

live with that. Thank you.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you for your comment, 

Suzanne. Real quick I want to recognize that Stan has 

come to the table on behalf of Independent Students.

And number two, shall we proceed with the 

temperature check on the concept for a tentative 

agreement here? I actually say we shall. I’d like to take 

a temperature check on tentative agreement on this 

concept with respect to -- I apologize -- with respect to 
31

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

the limitation period. Can I see thumbs?

Okay. So, I see Daniel, Misty, Jessica, you 

had your thumbs down. I also see Heather. First Daniel, 

Misty, Jessica, is it for any other reasons that are new 

that you didn’t say already? Okay. Heather, could you 

please articulate as to why you were thumbs down?

MS. PERFETTI: Similar sentiments to the 

others.

MR. TOTONCHI: Okay. Thank you. Okay, before 

moving on, Josh, I understand you actually did have a 

hand up. You wanted to share something.

MR. ROVENGER: Yes, thanks. So, there are 

just three sub-issues related to borrower defense 

generally that we haven’t discussed and that I think are 

worth us considering and then I’m happy to circulate it 

in writing after this in more detail. But I just did want 

to put it on everyone’s radar.

The first is -- we strongly believe that 

there needs to be a requirement that the Department 

provide a detailed explanation for its decisions. It’s 

important if the Department grants a decision to provide 

clarity to the borrower on what’s going to happen next. 

As Justin stated earlier today and his hand (audio) 

during public comment yesterday also indicated, it’s 

particularly important for denial, as the judge -- the 
32

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

federal judge in the Sweet case said, right now, the 

Department’s practice has been to issue perfunctory 

alarmingly curt denial notices. And so it’s our belief 

that there needs to be some sort of requirement for more 

detailed explanation.

Second -- and I alluded to this briefly 

earlier -- would be adding in an explicit statement 

saying that the Department can reopen -- or deny borrower 

defense claims in the future. This is particularly 

important if new evidence comes to light, that would 

change the analysis.

And then the final piece of it is just

adding in a requirement about data reporting from the 

Department. In particular, the Department needs to be 

transparent. How many discharges have happened? How many 

applications are pending? What’s the money at stake? 

Where -- which states the claims are pending in? And so 

we would ask that the Department consider adding in some 

sort of requirement for this data reporting because it is 

such an essential tool to understanding where there is 

misconduct and ensuring that the Department is fulfilling 

its oversight responsibilities.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Josh. So, as you 

said, you’ll submit those in writing for the committee’s 

consideration. And at the appropriate point in the future 
33

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

we will come back and review those as a committee, okay? 

Excellent, folks. We have gotten to the end, at least 

initially, of our borrower defense section.

At this stage, because we are early for a 

break, we’re going to continue to push forward, okay? We 

are moving to issue four: Improving PSLF application 

process.

And, to start us off on the PSLF topic, 

just an overview, I’d like to pass it to Jen. I do see 

Todd’s hand is up as well. So, I pass it to the 

Department of Ed, whoever would like to start.

MS. HONG: Go ahead, Todd.

MR. DAVIS: (audio) I just want to say thank 

you to everyone. Brian Siegel will be stepping back in 

for OGC as we move out of borrower defense and on to 

PSLF. Thank you all.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Todd, for your 

service. Jennifer, please take us forward.

MS. HONG: Yes, thank you, Emil. Earlier 

this morning, I promised you discussion on the 

Department’s announcement on PSLF this morning, so at 

this point in time, before we get into the issue paper, 

we have invited Ian Foss from our Office of Federal 

Student Aid. He’s the Director of Policy Implementation 

and Oversight. I don’t know if he’s in the queue yet, 
34

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

Emil, but he’s happy to talk about the announcement this 

morning and how FSA is implementing the PSLF initiatives, 

and then we can kind of segue that into issue paper 

number four, and there is attendant regulatory text with 

this paper as well.

MR. TOTONCHI: Excellent. I do see Ian Foss 

here and please proceed.

MR. FOSS: All right. Thank you, everyone. 

Can you all hear me? 

MR. TOTONCHI: Yes.

MR. FOSS: Great, thanks. So, I am Ian Foss, 

as mentioned, I’m an employee at Federal Student Aid, 

where I work on implementing, among many other things, 

the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. I’m sure 

you’ve all heard the news or read the news about the 

executive action to improve PSLF, and I’m here to talk a 

little bit about the terms in particular of what it was -

- that was actually announced -- as well as spending a 

little bit of time focusing in particular on how we’re 

going to actually proceed in an implementation, but 

questions about legal authority, questions about why the 

terms of the announcement are what they are, those are 

not things that I’m particularly well-equipped to answer 

for all of you.

So, with those disclaimers out of the way, 
35

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

what I would say is that the announcement was comprised 

of a variety of things. I would say that the meatiest of 

them was the announcement that we would account all prior 

payments made by student borrowers towards PSLF 

regardless of the loan program.

And so, over the course of the next few 

weeks, we will actually begin email campaigns to email 

Direct Loan borrowers who have already certified 

employment for PSLF. So, these were people who had 

started doing at least some things right with respect to 

Public Service Loan Forgiveness under the normal program 

rules. So, we had already been tracking their progress 

towards PSLF. So, in the next few weeks, we’ll be 

emailing them to inform them not only of the fact that 

they are covered by this announcement, but also 

specifically informing them of the -- our preliminary 

estimate of the number of additional qualified payments 

that we have determined, that they will be eligible to 

receive as a result of the action. So, borrowers will 

have that tangible piece of information in their hands in 

the next few weeks.

I would say it will take our PSLF servicer 

a bit longer to actually ensure that these updated 

payment accounts are reflected in the accounts of student 

loan borrowers. And we’re talking on a time horizon here 
36

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

of a handful of months, and not a handful of weeks. So, 

borrowers and everyone will need to be patient with us.

The best thing that we can advise borrowers 

to do at this time is to ensure that their contact 

information on studentaid.gov is up to date. That is the 

portal that we’ll be using to push messages out to 

borrowers, particularly for borrowers from the FFEL 

Program or the Perkins Program who maybe haven’t 

interacted with us directly on studentaid.gov before. 

They may not even have accounts. So, taking that action 

today is the best way to ensure that they get proactive 

personalized messaging from us.

But there are other steps that borrowers 

could need to take in order to set themselves up for this 

program. Of course, not all borrowers have consolidated 

their FFEL Program loans or their Perkins loans, and so 

converting those to the Direct Loan program is absolutely 

a condition of being able to receive credit for payments 

made or periods of time spent in repayment on their FFEL 

program loans or their Perkins loans, and then, of 

course, individuals who haven’t yet certified employment 

for PSLF or who maybe haven’t certified all of their 

employment for PSLF, because, at least in our experience, 

PSLF borrowers learn the rules as they go, and so, know 

not to certify employment from, say, before they 
37

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

consolidated their loans because there was never a point 

before. Well, now there’s a point. And so, individuals 

who maybe haven’t certified employment from before they 

consolidated their loans should certainly do so to ensure 

that we have complete employment history for them. 

Those are the only ways that we’ll really 

be able to apply this waiver to borrowers, but borrowers 

should not need to do anything specifically to get credit 

under the waiver besides consolidate their loans if they 

haven’t already and certify employment. 

We’re actually using our national student 

loan data system -- data set -- for those of you in the 

financial aid community, to calculate the number of 

additional qualified payments that borrowers will be 

eligible for. 

So FSA is actually doing the maths here, 

and we will be the system of records, so to speak, for 

the number of payments that borrowers should be able to 

get as a result of this waiver.

But that is just one of the things that we 

announced today. There are certainly more. So, we 

certainly plan on also simplifying what it means for a 

payment to qualify for PSLF. So, things like being off by 

a penny or late for a few days on making your payments, 

under normal PSLF program rules, can cause a borrower to 
38

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

not get credit for PSLF as a result of such rules. This 

waiver allows those periods to count when they normally 

would not. 

In addition, there are certain barriers to 

military borrowers who are seeking to qualify for PSLF, 

as many of you know. Active-duty members of the military 

are also oftentimes eligible for deferments and 

forbearances, but also, as I’m sure most of you know, 

those periods of times don’t typically count towards 

PSLF.

We will be working towards including those 

periods of time towards PSLF. Obviously, the borrower is 

working for a qualified employer if they’re in activeduty military service. So, we’ll be working towards 

offering members of the military credit for that period 

of time.

We are also planning on helping service 

members and other federal employees certify their 

employment more easily. Like most of you know right now, 

everybody needs to fill out paperwork to demonstrate they 

work for qualified employment under Public Service Loan 

Forgiveness. Going forward, that’s something that we’re 

hoping to eliminate, the need for members of the military 

and federal employees to send new data matching 

agreements or other data that we have access to through -
39

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

- with other federal agencies so that those individuals 

won’t actually need to go to their HR office in order to 

ultimately certify their employment.

We also plan on making a concerted effort 

to review denied PSLF applications and to identify and 

correct errors and processing where we find them. So, we 

will be doing a few different types of checks first of 

our administrative data to see if there are any patterns 

that we can glean that suggest that there are areas that 

we should dig into more deeply to look for errors, but we 

will also be engaging the services of an external 

organization to come in and actually review our 

operational practices with respect to PSLF as we seek to 

move forward with the program.

Last few before I take questions, because 

I’m sure there are many. We plan on working to simplify 

the PSLF application process over the course of the 

coming year. We plan on trying to improve the quality of 

our qualified employer database so that it’s easier for 

people to certify employment. And we’re working 

diligently to try to finally enable a full digitalization 

of our PSLF process through the help tool, that would not 

only allow borrowers and employers to sign PSLF paperwork 

where that’s still required, but also then digitally 

submit that paperwork to wherever it ultimately needs to 
40

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

go for processing. So, that there’s no more printing, 

scanning, faxing, many other 20th century technologies 

that don’t have any place today.

And then of course, we are all here -- you 

are all here to discuss rulemaking. And so, as you 

consider the agency’s proposal, as you consider what we 

might do with our PSLF regulations, I think it is just 

important for everyone to bear in mind that we have these 

waivers that are going on right now. They dovetail and 

intersect with certain aspects of our regulations, but 

these are our waivers of normal regulations. That means 

that they are temporary. These are not permanent 

modifications that were being announced.

And so, the permanent changes those are 

things that will come by and large to the regulatory 

modifications that are being addressed today. And with 

that I will pause and take any questions that folks have.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you for that 

presentation and for the information. Before we proceed 

with the questions, just a few things I want to note. 

Persis is back at the table on behalf of Legal Aid. 

Jennifer is at the table on behalf of student loan 

borrowers, and, alright, Suzanne is here on behalf of 

Suzanne and State regulators. Justin, please proceed.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Thanks, Emil. in the 
41

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

interest of full disclosure. I actually have maybe what 

would be fairly considered three kind of separate 

questions. I don’t know if that’s good for me to just 

rifle off all three or if you guys want to cycle through 

and come back to me, but -- your -- okay, alright. I’m 

just going to go --

MR. TOTONCHI: Go ahead, proceed. 

MR. HAUSCHILD: To begin where Ian left off, 

he had mentioned these are waivers of authority and I 

know -- in taking a look at the fact sheet -- there are 

certain of these changes that are -- have pretty clearly 

delineated timeframes. And some of these others, maybe 

not so much or maybe I just missed them. 

So, I’m wondering, are these all reliant on 

essentially emergency authority right now that to the 

extent that we might need to consider them within this 

process? I don’t know if that question makes sense. Are 

there -- is there anything here that is maybe more 

permanent in nature that the Department’s doing without 

emergency authority?

MR. FOSS: So, I mean, I know our Legal 

Counsel is here who can talk more about our authorities, 

but certainly there are improvements that we are making 

that are purely operational and that in no way require 

sort of any consideration really of legal authorities. 
42

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

Things like digitizing the PSLF help tool is an example 

of one of the things that obviously is not a waiver of 

rules, does not require any particular consideration, but 

Brian, I don’t know if you’d like to chime in at all on 

the other topics.

MR. SIEGEL: No, I think the announcements 

by the Department today indicated that certain changes 

we’re making to the requirements of PSLF rely on our 

authority under the Heroes Act which allows us to modify 

or change regulations and statutory provisions during a 

national emergency, and the Department has -- is 

executing -- is using that authority in regard to some of 

the changes that have been announced today.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Okay, I appreciate that. I 

think I’m just trying to kind of make sure I’ve got a 

good distinction between which ones are on that emergency 

authority.

But the next question I had was for the 

changes concerning military borrowers. Specifically, I’m 

curious if the Department plans, when they’re 

implementing this, to also look at former service members 

in their data match. Of course, now it would be veterans, 

but would have perhaps time and service now being 

credited, and whether or not they plan to combine that 

with -- for instance, I would -- ECFs, they may already 
43

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

have for these veterans working in other -- in public 

service positions of post-transition.

MR. FOSS: Certainly, we plan on pulling in 

as much history as we possibly can. There are some 

details that we don’t have finalized yet, such as exactly 

how far back we will be able to go, but we will go as far 

back as our data will possibly allow us to go to 

automatically certify payments towards PSLF. 

But like I mentioned, exactly how far back, 

that is right now, I think, actually, that’s uncertain.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Okay, great. That’s actually 

it for me. Thanks so much. I appreciate it, everyone.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. And I see about 

five hands. We will definitely take those comments. I 

just want everyone to keep in mind that obviously, we’re 

going to continue this -- the discussion on this subject 

matter as part of our subtopics discussions as well. I’m 

just moving forward, so don’t feel like this is the only 

opportunity to discuss this stuff, okay? Persis.

MS. YU: Thank you. And thank you, Ian, for 

being here and discussing these topics, of course, for 

the Department’s announcement. I think this is going to

be a huge relief for a lot of folks, especially a lot of 

the folks that I work with.

I do have a number of questions. Some of 
44

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

them big picture, some of them operationally. In terms 

of the consolidation for FFEL borrowers, one of the 

questions that I have is certainly what guarantees will 

they have that, if they do consolidate their loans, they 

will then be eligible for these payments to count. 

Certainly, we know that one of the problems has been 

about employment. You’ve said, as long as they’re in

qualifying employment, these will count. But of course,

that has been one of the barriers for folks, is being 

able to certify or have the Department agree that their 

employer is in fact a qualifying employer. And somewhat 

to that point as well, since a number of these folks, 

will have been in employment that was fairly lengthy 

ago, whether or not the Department is willing to 

consider self-certification of that employment, given 

that folks may have moved on several jobs from that 

time. So, we would want to make sure that those folks 

who were operating under the assumption that their time 

wasn’t counting would now be able to have that count. 

The other question that I have, kind of 

operationally, is about qualifying payment. We’ve seen a 

lot of folks have trouble with servicers being able to 

frankly count, and wanting to make sure that there is 

some process that borrowers can go through in order to 

make sure that the count that their servicers transfer -
45

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

- we saw that in that 60 Minutes interview this Sunday. 

I’ve experienced this personally with 

payments not counting properly. Isn’t there some process 

where borrowers can somehow challenge the count, or at 

least get an accounting? I’ve had clients spend over a 

year trying to just get their servicers to provide them 

with some kind of payment history. So, wondering what 

the Department can do to help facilitate that process, 

or count time that -- if there is some dispute between 

the borrower and their servicer about whether or not 

time would count -- to put that in the favor of the 

borrower. 

And then, just to wrap up, my final comment

is that a lot of the issues that have been identified by

the Department as problems for PSLF are also problems 

for income-driven repayment. And as we -- a report that 

we did showed very few borrowers have received 

cancellation under income-driven repayment, largely for 

similar reasons. They were in a FFEL -- they had a FFEL

loan as opposed to a Direct Loan. They were in the wrong

kind of repayment plan. They were confused. They were 

steered into forbearances instead of income-driven

repayment, and whether or not the Department has any 

plans to do any similar type programs for low-income 

borrowers who are not able to get relief under the 
46

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

income-driven repayment plan. So, thank you. 

MR. TOTONCHI: If there is not an immediate 

reaction to that, I can note that and I would ask Persis

if you could drop that in the chat as well. 

Look, folks, I do see a number of hands 

here. I want to make sure you have the chance to ask 

your questions. If you could try to zero on -- zero in 

on the questions at this stage, and then we may get to 

the point, depending on time, where we may ask some of 

you to drop your questions in the chat, or answers from 

the Department at a later point, okay? Just a heads-up 

on that. Suzanne, please proceed. 

MS. MARTINDALE: Sure, I’ll try to keep it 

brief. I have a concrete question, and then a comment 

about communications to borrowers. So, I’ll start with 

my concrete question, which is -- thank you, Ian, for 

presenting on this announcement. I echo what Persis said

about how this is going to be really game changing for a 

lot of people. So, if FFEL payments are going to count 

with the caveat that ultimately borrowers need to 

consolidate -- understand that, that’s very common. I 

must -- e-mailed another colleague who spent the first 

couple of years -- certified employment, thought she was 

good, but didn’t know she had to consolidate, so she 

lost a couple of years. So, this is going to help 
47

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

someone like her. Do those FFEL payments still need to 

have been made on a qualifying repayment plan? Did they 

have to have been on IDR while making the FFEL payments 

for them to count? 

MR. FOSS: No, and I was waiting for this 

question. Really, I just wanted to give myself a chance 

to stop talking, and hear from all of you. But this is 

some of the core of what the waivers (audio). So, we are 

not actually looking, for the purposes of this waiver, 

at the concept of a payment. We’re looking at periods of 

repayment. So, we’re looking to see whether or not the 

grace period has expired, and whether or not the loan

was in deferment or forbearance. 

And between that and qualified employment 

in the 2007 date, that still applies to the program --

that is -- those are the data that we’re using to 

effectuate this waiver. So, to answer your question more 

directly, no, for this period of time, a repayment plan 

does not qualify. It does not matter, rather.

MS. MARTINDALE: Great. Happy to hear it. 

Okay, and then, my suggestion about or my comment about 

borrower communication is -- there is a lot of confusion 

out there. There are direct communications that people 

receive from the Department assuming they’ve signed up, 

gotten the FSA and etcetera while people are also 
48

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

getting information directly from their loan servicers. 

Now, of course, I think everyone knows that we’re going 

to be in the middle of a mass servicing transfer where

approximately 60 million borrowers are going to be 

transferred away from some of the contractors that are 

exiting the system. So, new contractors or organizations 

as part of a multi-state regulator group that’s working 

with the Department and the CFPB to make sure that those 

transfers do not result in errors or loss of key 

information, particularly for PSLF borrowers. 

So, I guess my -- it’s a comment/worry --

but also my suggestion would be that the Department 

focus heavily, heavily, heavily, through its own 

channels, and also by working with the servicers to make 

sure the borrowers are indeed signing up for FSA 

accounts if they have not done so already. So, that more

of the communications are coming directly from the 

Department -- because I can tell you anecdotally, when I 

talk to people who are borrowers, they’re still getting 

conflicting information from their own servicers to the 

extent that we can get more borrowers to be relying on 

and getting more frequent information directly from 

Department branded e-mails. I think that will help 

reduce some of the confusion, not just because of the 

changes to this program, but because we are in the 
49

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

middle of a mass loan servicing transfer that’s already 

causing problems. So, thank you for that. 

MR. FOSS: Of course. We’re very cognizant 

of loan transfer issues that are long-standing, upcoming, etc. Registering for an FSA ID is absolutely 

part of what we recommend students do, particularly, for 

FFEL program borrowers and Perkins borrowers who don’t 

have a history with interacting with us on 

studentaid.gov. And so, we’re looking for avenues to 

reach all of these borrowers. But, by nature, we don’t 

have their contact information, so it’s a little bit 

roundabout. But it is very much on our minds. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. I see Dixie, 

Daniel, Jennifer, and Joe -- and then, I’m going to --

we’re going to stop there in terms of the questions 

right here. If you have questions beyond that, put them 

in the chat, please. Go ahead, Dixie. 

MS. SAMANIEGO: Yeah, so, I actually wanted 

to call out to everyone’s attention that I strongly 

believe that there was a violation of organizational 

protocols, specifically a violation of Section 5 (e),

under the section of Advisers, where it says, “With 

approval by a consensus of the primary members of the 

committee, individuals who are invited by a primary 

member but who are not members of the committee may 
50

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

participate in committee or subcommittee meetings as 

needed and appropriate. 

And I think, while I appreciate the 

presentation Ian just gave a lot, and it provided a lot 

of perspective, and a lot of context that I don’t have 

personally, because I’m not a borrower, I think that 

there was a clear violation of protocols. But also, that 

we also need to give the same leniency that we gave to 

Ian, right? and the negotiator to specifically the 

students in this committee to also ask to have a 

presentation by borrowers, defrauded borrowers, and also 

specifically people who have used PSLF loans, because I 

personally do not have that context nor that familiarity 

with the process of getting a loan. And if I don’t, and 

I’m here, the folks who most likely have this loan do 

not as well. And so, I would appreciate that context. 

And also, I don’t appreciate that we 

weren’t able to also have asked -- to have had a 

presentation on things that the students here have made 

clear, and not just students, but other negotiators have 

previously made clear yesterday and the first day of the 

session, that while we are here, we cannot represent all 

millions of higher ed students, right? 

And me just alone, while I tick off many of 

the boxes that the Department of Education was probably 
51

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

looking for, I don’t tick off borrower or defrauded 

borrower. And I would -- while don’t have a negotiator 

for those two sectors, I would want, at least at the 

bare minimum, to have a presentation on that. Because

the Department of Education was able to present on the 

announcement today, and at the very least and what this 

committee and the Department of Education owes, myself, 

Michaela, and Jennifer, and our alternates, Greg and 

Stan, at the very least, we are -- we deserve to have 

context provided to the stuff that we don’t have 

experience with. 

And so, I point out the violation of the 

protocol, but I also ask that we are able to have a 

presenter on topics that I am not familiar with and nor 

are the other students on this committee familiar with. 

Thank you. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Dixie, for your 

comments and for voicing your concern. I suppose what I 

would do is I’d encourage, if there is a perception of 

an inconsistency in the protocol, feel free to call it 

out earlier. So, for example, prior to -- here, prior to 

in speaking here if there is an objection, feel free to 

raise it there, and we can take a vote. Okay? But I 

appreciate your (audio) concern. We’ll be mindful. Thank 

you. Let’s continue --
52

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

MS. SAMANIEGO: (interposing) I also have 

that asked, though. I have that asked of having a 

presenter, defrauded borrowers, borrowers, and 

specifically people who have experience with PSLF loans. 

I have that asked, and I know that Jennifer as well, and 

Michaela, and our alternates, Greg and Stan also have 

that asked. So, if we awarded, right? -- we gave the 

space for the Department of Education to have Ian come 

here, at the very least we should also have students 

with those experiences come and present on that, because 

I cannot represent those students adequately because I 

do not have those experiences. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. We appreciate 

that, Dixie. At the appropriate time, we can discuss 

that. Right now, we have limited time on this topic. 

There are just a few more questions, we’re almost there. 

But we’ll discuss when to raise that topic for 

appropriate -- so we can address it appropriately. Okay? 

Daniel.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Thank you. Just a couple of 

questions, Ian, if I can. First is on loan 

consolidation. I know that loan consolidation was 

mentioned -- previous loan consolidation, and I have 

some practical questions, which probably are beyond the 

scope today, but I just want to name them. One is, how 
53

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

is the Department going to be able to determine what 

percentage for a situation where a student may have made 

10 years of payments on one loan, but not on another? 

How is the Department going to determine that? And what 

portion of the consolidated balance pertains to which? 

And along those lines, if in fact part of the 

consolidated loan is forgiven, will the loan remaining 

be re-amortized, or will it be -- payments be required 

of the original loan balance? So, I don’t know if you 

have any thoughts about that. I can certainly also take 

them offline if that’s easier.

MR. FOSS: I think it’s an important 

question to address, and that’s clearly, I think, one of 

the reasons why I’m here. So, I’m happy to address it 

now, and if there are more questions, they can certainly 

be handled offline as appropriate under the protocols. 

To answer the question directly, a 

consolidation loan, as you know, is one loan that repays 

most of the time multiple loans. PSLF is what we call a 

loan-based benefit, meaning that each underlying loan to 

a consolidation loan before it’s consolidated could have 

a different qualified payment count. One could have 

five. One could have six. One could have zero.

What we are doing for the purposes of this 

waiver, and to solve that very thorny problem, is in 
54

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

certain ways removing ourselves from the problem. By 

looking at all loans the borrower took out and stitching 

together every period of repayment, on every loan that 

they consolidate, adding all of that up, and then 

attributing it to the new consolidation loan going -- so 

that that is the qualified payment count that the 

borrower has kind of at the point that that loan was 

disbursed, i.e., the other loans were paid off, and so 

that loan will have one payment count going forward, and 

will be adding up all of the periods of discreet 

repayment on the loans that are consolidated to derive 

that count. I don’t know if that makes sense. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: So, Ian, did for (inaudible) 

the question. So, one loan has been in repayment for, 

let’s say, 10 years now, and the other is three years, 

what’s going to happen to that combined balance? Will 

the combined balance be forgiven? 

MR. FOSS: So, assuming that the 10 years 

and the three years totally overlap, and the borrower 

consolidates tomorrow and certifies employment, 

theoretically, that entire loan would be forgiven from 

the point of consolidation going forward. And in our 

preliminary data, we did find borrowers who were going 

from zero to 120. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: Okay, that’s helpful. The 
55

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

other question is, I note currently -- and again, I echo 

the comment that was raised earlier about the servicer 

changes -- but I wonder if there is a possibility of 

ongoing notice about the number of qualified payments. I 

note that to date, you know, again, payment 

qualification notwithstanding, the communication from 

servicers and the Department has been very limited in 

terms of number of qualifying payments. So, to alleviate

some of the concerns, I wonder if there’s an ability to 

encourage or grow the amount of notification that’s 

taking place. I’ll leave that as it is. 

And the last point I’ll make -- and again, 

I’m conscious of time, and I see Emil’s face looking at 

me, so I’m trying to speed through this, so -- to be 

conscious of time -- the last thing I’ll say is I 

respect and appreciate the temporary nature, but I would 

urge the Department to find a way to make this 

permanent. I understand that this is being done under

CARES’ authorization, and with that in mind, I would 

still say there’s an ability -- if there’s total 

goodwill -- there’s an ability to use that authorization 

to make this a permanent change. And I would highly 

encourage the Department to think carefully about that, 

or to include these changes within the scope of the Neg 

Reg that we are discussing in this timeframe. So, thank 
56

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

you. 

MR. FOSS: And Daniel, to your point about 

communications, I would just echo that we agree with 

you. And one of the things that we’re actively seeking 

to do right now is to have much more robust information 

about PSLF reported to our organization, FSA, so that we 

can integrate it into more communications, be that 

through studentaid.gov, through the PSLF help tool or 

indirect communications to borrowers. So, we agree with 

you, and we’re taking steps to enable exactly that kind 

of experience. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. I see Jennifer and 

Joe have their hands up. And Marjorie, you might recall 

that I said that Joe would have the last comments, and 

that any other questions would be -- if you could put 

them in the comment section, that’ll be great. Jennifer, 

please proceed. 

MS. HONG: Hi, everyone. I think it’s 

detrimental to say that what Dixie brought out is what 

needs to be recognized. I, myself, was also elected to 

be here with all of you. I also check out a lot of those 

boxes just like her, but I have no idea how we’re going 

to get the FFEL borrowers to start being able to 

register for government aid, and how you’re going to

find them. 
57

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

So, now we have all these other borrowers 

who we are representing. We’re basically representing 17 

million post-secondary students, and they don’t have a 

voice here. Because all the knowledge that I have, and 

all the boxes I check, I don’t check those. And I think 

we need to figure out how Dixie’s point needs to be 

brought up, and how we need a presentation, because if I 

have all this knowledge to be in the same -- well, Zoom 

room, right? It’s not a real room -- with all of you 

all, then we need those voices, and we need to be honest 

and represent them to the best of all our abilities. And 

I think that’s going to go with Dixie’s point. But thank 

you, Dixie. We were like in the same wave. Thank you. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Okay. And thank you, Dixie 

and Jennifer, for your points. Allow FMCS to convene as 

a facilitation team, and respond accordingly. Okay? We 

will respond at a later point on this topic that you had 

both raised. So, thank you for your concerns. Joe.

MR. SANDERS: Thanks, I’ll be brief. Lots of 

FFEL borrowers were at one point serviced by Conduent. I 

know there are issues with information that Conduent did 

or did not transfer to other servicers. Does the 

Department have the ability to count Conduent payments? 

And if not, how do you plan to do it? 

MR. FOSS: Yeah, so, I think it’s important 
58

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

to recognize that what we are not doing as part of this 

waiver is trying to count payments. We are trying to 

count periods of repayment status on a loan, which we 

will do, not through loan servicing histories that are 

transferred between servicers to load into servicing 

systems and enable the servicing of the loan. Instead, 

what we will be doing is using information that 

servicers and guarantee agencies have regularly, and for 

decades now, reported to the National Student Loan Data 

System on a regular basis. And so, I don’t mean to 

discount the issue that you’re mentioning with respect 

to Conduent payment histories and transfers. I just 

don’t believe that that issue will present itself in 

this case because we’re using a completely different set 

of data for the analysis. 

MR. SANDERS: Thank you. I do want to say, 

too, excited about these changes. Great work, looking

forward to working with you all on PSLF going forward. 

And lastly, I read student borrower complaints every 

day. It informs my practice on a regular basis, so I 

think it would be helpful to have the type of 

presentation that Dixie and Jennifer mentioned 

(inaudible). Thank you. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Okay. At this stage, folks, I 

want to thank Ian for being here, and for the 
59

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

presentation, for everyone’s comments associated with 

this topic. We are going to take a brief break. It is 

2:21. Let’s round up to 2:35. Please return at that 

time.

(Recess from 2:21 p.m. to 2:35 p.m.)

MR. TOTONCHI: Right, I hope everyone had a 

good break. Let’s get rolling with discussions on 

improving PSLF application process. I understand that 

the first subtopic is remove application requirements. 

Jennifer, if you could take us through that. 

MS. HONG: Alright. Thank you, Emil. I’m 

just going to ask Vanessa to please cue the proposed 

regulatory text for issue number four. We are on issue 

number four for improving the PSLF application process. 

And so, while she gets set up, I’ll just start talking. 

First of all, just want to ride this wave 

of enthusiasm for the temporary waivers we just provided 

under PSLF today, and let’s just make some of them 

permanent. 

Briefly, under Section 455 (m) of the HEA, 

the Secretary must cancel outstanding balances on 

eligible loans for borrowers who are employed full-time 

in a public service job after they make 120 qualifying 

payments. We all recognize that very few borrowers who 

applied for PSLF have received forgiveness, and we are 
60

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

proposing several regulatory changes pertaining to the 

application process. Payment counting and eligibility in 

FFEL loans, which so long as FFEL borrowers avail 

themselves of the action to consolidate by October 1, 

2022, this announcement is a moot issue. 

With that, I’ll start with the first issue 

that Ian alluded to. And that has to do with data 

matches that we -- that are available to us. Vanessa, if 

you want to go to page six. And that is removing 

application requirements when the Secretary determines 

they do not need one. Again, another opportunity for 

automation based on data that we have. The two 

populations we’re thinking of currently are federal 

employees and servicemen and women. And so, that 

language is there for you, and happy to hear your 

thoughts on automating the process for those 

populations. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Okay. Thanks, Jennifer. 

Bethany, you’re up first.

MS. LILLY: So, strongly support this. I 

think it’s a great idea. I’m curious if you’re thinking 

about other data matching as well. The IRS has, of 

course, tax status data on all the non-profits out 

there, and I mean, every year I click through and sign

permissions, so that ED and IRS can share my tax data. 
61

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

So, I’ve always been a little confused as 

to why ED doesn’t just do that automatically, and also 

identify, because you have the employer tax identifier

numbers. 501 (c)(3) is another classifying employees. I 

know we’re getting into the definition of employers 

later on, but that’s always been one of those things 

that I think makes a lot of sense for ED to do. So, I 

strongly support this, but I would encourage ED to think 

more broadly about it. And obviously this sets it up so

that ED -- if ED does develop that capacity in the 

future, if they can do that. So, I’m glad to see that. 

I’m also continuing to be slightly confused 

why we have this provision in the Public Service Loan 

Forgiveness piece, but we don’t have it in other places 

where ED is automating things. So, I’m just putting a 

pin in that, I know that that’s outside of the scope of 

this discussion. But I want to put a pin in that because 

I continue to be confused about that point. So, thank 

you. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Bethany. Justin. 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Yeah, thanks, Emil. We also 

are very supportive of this. It looks as Jennifer, I 

think, alluded to there being kind of an extension, or

with -- kind of keeping in mind some of what’s already 

happening under executive authority. I just -- I think 
62

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

we just want to make sure that when we’re talking about 

data matches here, that it’s as broad as possible. 

Particularly, when we’re talking about service members 

and veterans. So, making sure that former service 

members, veterans now post-transitioned, who are still 

working in public service and have been submitting 

ECF’s, that there is a cross-check between essentially 

the data match in the past service credited, and where 

the -- that borrower may be now in their post-transition 

public service work. 

And the second thing -- I’m not entirely 

sure if this is the right place to bring it up -- but 

we’re also curious about an idea of the deferral or 

forbearance law on application pending, knowing that 

there have been some extremely long wait times, and we’d 

be curious to hear folks’ thoughts on whether or not it 

might be appropriate for these borrowers to essentially 

go into a deferral or deferral or forbearance once the 

application is submitted in that waiting period.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. Joe, please 

proceed.

MR. SANDERS: Thank you. Has the Department 

considered data sharing agreements with State agencies to 

identify their employees? 

MS. HONG: I think we’ve considered it and 
63

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

this language is deliberately open ended to allow for any 

kind of future data matching with other eligible 

entities. If you have more data on that, Joe, happy to 

hear it.

MR. SANDERS: I would just say I think that 

there may be State agencies that would be interested in 

doing that. Here in Illinois agencies are very interested 

in getting their employees enrolled. I know California 

has been doing some stuff around that, too. And it’s an 

employment retention issue as well. It’s a benefit to 

employees to have this stuff (audio).

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Joe. Marjorie, please 

proceed.

MS. DORIME-WILLIAMS: Yes. So, I’m really 

just going to second everything that Joe and Bethany just 

shared. And I also think it’s important -- I don’t know

if “full disclosure” is the right word -- but speaking 

for myself, I am a borrower who’s in the process of 

trying to navigate Public Service Loan Forgiveness, I 

even found my physical rejection letter in denial. So,

I’m happy to talk about that process. I think it’s 

important to keep in mind that as negotiators, while we 

are representing specific constituencies, we’re also 

people, right? I’m a mom, I’m a single parent, there are 

other things going on.
64

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

So, Dixie, I really appreciate your point 

about who’s sitting at the table, but I think it’s also 

important to recognize that maybe we can just ask folks 

to share and I’m happy, and maybe between this session 

and the next I can teach a class about Public Service 

Loan Forgiveness. 

It’s part of what I do anyway, and I 

certainly appreciate the efforts of the Department to 

make this easier, because I know myself as a professional 

who works in higher education, this is very difficult.

So, I can’t imagine certainly for other borrowers what 

this looks like. 

One of the other questions, though, is also 

thinking about this process of automation. And I know we 

haven’t gotten to the point where we’re talking about 

defining sort of borrowers and systems and organizations, 

but again, one of the questions that I got from some of 

my constituent members is, “I don’t even know of I 

qualify.” 

And again, these are folks who are 

professionals, folks who work in higher education. And 

so, I think as we’re in this process, it’d be really 

important to -- Jennifer, I think I appreciate that the 

language is open ended, but maybe in enough specificity, 

so people know, okay, “this program is meant for me,” or 
65

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

at least, “I can apply and get feedback and information 

that’s helpful instead of just yes or no,” which is 

what’s happening right now.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Marjorie. Persis.

MS. YU: Thank you. And I will again second 

or third or fourth the praise of automation in general. I 

think that whatever we can do to make these processes as 

easy as possible for borrowers is the direction we need 

to go. And so, I support any automation and expansion of 

the automated databases.

I’m also curious if there are other ways 

that we can also simplify the process where automation is 

not possible, possibly looking at whether or not 

borrowers can self-certify their employer, where there --

where they may either have trouble with it or because 

we’re -- again, this is a ten-year program. And so, 

borrowers may not have contact with those employers.

So, what choices will those borrowers have 

to make it easier and then, again, I’m not sure how this 

will interact with the announcement today, but again, 

we’re looking at something that goes back ten years, so 

making sure that all of these changes will be 

retroactive. So, will we be -- if we’re automating 

things, is there a way to look back for -- since, I 

guess, 2007, to make sure that we’re capturing all of the 
66

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

people that can’t possibly be captured with automation? 

And all the other rule changes we’re making. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Persis. Jeri, you’re 

up.

MS. O’BRYAN-LOSEE: I’m along the same 

lines. I put some proposed text in the box -- in the chat 

box. Just drawing your attention to that, and -- because 

right now you can check a box on the old form you have to 

fax in. You can check a box that says my employers won’t 

help. So, but anything automation, so I don’t have to fax 

this later today would be great. Automatic submission 

would be great.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. Seeing as there 

are no other hands right at this moment, I will ask for a 

temperature check for tentative agreement on the proposed 

redline language. So, can I see thumbs, please? Remember 

to put it right next to you face. Some of you are hanging 

out down here and over here. Okay, thank you. I don’t see 

any thumbs down. Jen, if we could proceed with the next 

subtopic of payments counting. Please proceed, Jennifer.

MS. HONG: Yes, okay, payment counting. As 

you all know, we just feel that the rules here are a 

little too restrictive. They don’t match how we treat a 

qualifying payment for IDR. This can lead to confusion 

for the borrower, the servicer and the Department.
67

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

So, our goal here is to align with IDR and 

allow payments to count even if they are late or made in 

installments. We also want to adopt a current practice in 

codifying regulation about allowing borrowers to pay 

ahead up to the recertification date on IDR.

This ensures paid ahead status isn’t an 

issue but prevents someone just making 120 payments all 

at once and qualifying. And that language you will find -

- excuse me -- Vanessa, on page four.

MR. TOTONCHI: I see, Misty, that your 

hand’s up. Let’s just nail down this screen share here. 

Okay, thank you, Vanessa. Misty, please proceed.

MS. SABOUNEH: Let me know, Jennifer, if 

this isn’t accurate, but it’s my understanding that when 

a student applies for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, 

they have to actually be employed at that time at a 

qualifying employer, regardless of whether they’ve made 

their 120 consecutive payments. If that’s the case, I 

would propose that, if a student has made the 120 

qualifying payments at the time they filed, that would be

-- it wouldn’t matter.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Misty, for your 

comment. Suzanne. And just to note, Suzanne is sitting in 

for State Regulators.

MS. MARTINDALE: Thank you. Yes, actually, 
68

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

to Misty’s point, I believe in the FAQ that was issued 

this morning, there was a clarification that you do not 

need to be currently employed at an eligible employer to 

get the relief, and under today’s announcement --

Jennifer, please correct me if I’m wrong on that. So --

and I agree that that should not be a requirement. I 

think if you’ve made the payments, you’ve made the 

payments, you did what you were supposed to do, you 

should be able to get them cancelled.

And I will just say I’m in strong support 

of this language. I have heard from so many people that 

didn’t know about this “paid ahead status” thing and were 

very confused as to why they’d be penalized for trying to 

pay ahead. And so, I think that the goal here is that if 

you’ve done ten years of public service and have been 

repaying your loans, you should be able to get them 

cancelled. So, I very much appreciate the inclusion of 

this language. Thank you.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. Jeri. I actually 

see Brian’s hand is up. Do you have an initial comment, 

Brian?

MR. SIEGEL: Yeah, the requirement that the 

borrower be employed in a public service job at the time, 

but -- the statute requires that the borrower be employed 

in a public service job at the time of forgiveness.
69

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

That’s why the requirement is in current regs. The action 

we took today is designed under -- or is taken under --

our emergency authority, under the Heroes Act. Without a 

statutory change, we can’t change that permanently.

MS. O’BRYAN-LOSEE: Thank you. I was almost 

excited for all of the retirees I know who are getting 

current social security garnished, just because they 

didn’t do their paperwork in time, so I’ve got a lot of 

work to do this afternoon.

So, I just want to thank -- say thanks for 

being as liberal as possible with all of this.

One of the biggest problems is -- to me, 

that I encounter -- is that people do not know the 

difference between an IDR and a servicer -- other service 

plan that they’ve been in, because loan servicers have 

been such bad actors in situations. So, as liberal as we 

can be for as long as we can be will be incredibly 

important to so many of us. I just want to throw that out 

there.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Jeri. Bethany.

MS. LILLY: So, this is a question that 

stems from a conversation I had with someone who had 

their Public Service Loan Forgiveness application denied 

for lack of payments last night, and specifically this 

question relates to -- I support the text as is, but the 
70

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

confusion seemed to be about transitioning between 

eligible jobs and the payment happening to fall during 

that kind of gap in the transition.

Obviously, their employment during the 

month was for eligible employers, but the payment 

happened to fall outside of that.

And so, to the -- echo the themes that 

folks have already covered, which are, please expand this 

as broadly as you possibly can and align it with IDR. I 

understand that interest, but I think that’s a subset of 

issues here that I just wanted to flag for folks. And 

aside from that, that’s my one comment.

MR. TOTONCHI: Persis.

MS. YU: So, I wanted to go back to the 

issue about -- for -- being in qualified employment at 

the time of forgiveness, and wonder whether or not there 

is any flexibility given that we know that there’s been a 

lot of variability in the amount of time the servicer has 

taken in order to actually process these applications.

That seems to create a pretty harsh burden 

on a borrower when they have no control over how long --

especially the servicer -- actually takes to process 

their application. It has taken some borrowers and 

sometimes more than a year to get those applications 

approved.
71

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

And so, whether or not there can be some 

time limit, whether what -- if their application is 

submitted and the Department or servicer hasn’t responded 

within a certain timeframe, can it be considered to be 

the same employer? I just think that there’s a lot of 

protections and this leaves borrowers very vulnerable.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Persis. Michaela.

MS. MARTIN: Yeah, in the draft changes that 

we were ( sent) before, it’s proposing a change to that, 

though. It says then, (i) -- what was -- (i)(b) at the 

time that -- and then it said, “remaining principal and 

accrued interest are forgiven,” but that’s crossed out 

with “borrower applies for forgiveness.” 

So, are we not saying at the time of 

forgiveness -- at the time of forgiveness or when they 

apply? And just to show -- I don’t know -- if that’s 

helpful -- if you can see that, because I don’t know how 

to read the sections very well in this.

MR. TOTONCHI: It’s very difficult, 

Michaela. 

MS. MARTIN: (interposing) I tried. Yeah, 

that was a part of the document. So, are we not trying to 

change that right now?

MR. SIEGEL: I can just respond briefly. We 

will get to the more -- to the substitance [sic] --
72

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

substance of all these changes later, but we are -- for 

purposes of these regs, we are proposing to treat the 

application as the time of forgiveness, to address the 

issue that Persis mentioned. 

I was responding to the idea that, no, we 

can’t just go off credit payments, just because a 

borrower was -- has worked for a public service employer

for 120 months, even if they’re not working for them at 

the time they apply.

MS. MARTIN: Okay, so just to be more clear 

(audio). You’re saying that it’s a change in definition 

of what it means when the time of forgiveness is then, 

not a change in when -- in that fundamental kind of 

regulation, right?

MR. SIEGEL: Right, because of the delays 

that there have been between the time of the application 

and the Department’s (audio). 

MS. MARTIN: And it would be then --

Congress that would have to change it if we wanted to 

say, “If you did your ten years of public interest and 

you pay those, and then now you happen to no longer be 

working there, and still owe,” they would have to fix 

that?

MR. SIEGEL: Yes.

MS. MARTIN: Thank you.
73

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

MR. TOTONCHI: Great, thanks, everyone.

Let’s have a temperature check for tentative agreement on 

the proposed redlined language. Let me see everyone’s 

thumbs.

So, there are a couple of people whose 

thumbs I don’t see. I’m going to assume you’re here if I 

can’t see your thumb. 

Okay, I don’t see any down -- thumbs down. 

Thank you for that feedback, everyone. Okay, moving 

along. The next subtopic is, “allow certain deferments 

and forbearances.” Jennifer, could you take us through 

that, please?

MS. HONG: Yes. So, basically, again, we 

want to align this with IDR as well as count military 

service, economic hardship, and cancer. We’re open to 

discuss other statuses as well.

The point is that we want to land on the 

same changes here as well as for IDR.

It’ll also be helpful to be clear which 

deferments and forbearances should suffice for counting a 

payment, and which ones might be able to count as a 

payment and employment. 

For example, military service should tell 

us enough for payments and employment, but economic 

hardship would only tell us about payments. So, I -- this 
74

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

is also on page four of the regulatory text, maybe

(audio). Yes, there you go. Thank you, Vanessa.

MR. TOTONCHI: Bethany.

MS. LILLY: I asked this question about the 

announcement from this morning as well. So, I’ll just ask

-- I dropped it in the chat. So, I’ll re-drop it in the 

chat now, but -- deferments when folks are switching 

between payment periods or payment plans, I know that a 

lot of folks got trapped in a three-month deferment 

period when they transitioned from PAYE to REPAYE. 

And I would assume that we could count that 

forbearance period, because -- obviously, that’s folks 

who are in the payment plans, they’re just kind of going 

through the bureaucratic mess -- that’s the polite way to 

put it, I guess -- that was the transition between 

payment plans.

So, I want to flag that as an option. I 

also really appreciate the inclusion of cancer treatment 

here but I would say that there are plenty of other folks 

who go through other types of medical treatment.

For instance, if you have a -- get into a 

car accident and you end up with a spinal cord injury, if

you have a traumatic brain injury, if you have other 

types of contexts there, I think, obviously, that’s -- I 

mean, if we’re counting cancer, to my mind, we should 
75

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

also be counting other conditions like that, and so I’d 

want to broaden that for deferments for medical reasons.

And I think that would be fairly easy for the Department 

to verify because folks could provide a note from a 

doctor or something along those lines.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Bethany. Daniel, 

if you could comment.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Thank you. So, I appreciate 

the inclusion of the several deferments. I wonder if we 

should be also viewing the timeframe that it takes from 

application to determination and if we should go back to 

similar language that we’ve used or talked about in the 

borrower defense repayment, that between the period of 

time that an application is made and the decision is made

-- is that period deferred or forborne payments during 

that period? And would that period count toward the 120 

payments?

It seems, again, a bit disingenuous to have 

someone complete an application, wait 90, 120, 180 days, 

continue to make payments during that timeframe.

I would prefer to see, once the application 

is made, for those payments to be forborne, but then, if 

a decision is negative for those to count as payment 

periods during the timeframe. So, I’d ask the Department 

to think about that as well.
76

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

MR. TOTONCHI: Okay, thanks. If you could 

write that question in the comments, that would be great, 

Daniel, thank you. Persis. Persis, did you lower your 

hand?

MS. MACK: She’s on mute. Persis --

MR. TOTONCHI: Oh, she’s on mute. Okay.

MS. YU: Sorry, I’m on mute.

MR. TOTONCHI: Sorry, couldn’t -- didn’t see 

where you went.

MS. YU: Yes, sorry about that. So, yes. So, 

I am piggybacking off of Bethany’s comment about the 

deferments and forbearance time between repayment plans, 

but also, we’d like to talk about the recertification 

time.

Historically, there has been a significant 

amount of deferment or forbearance time between -- in a 

recertification and I -- that, for a lot of folks, that’s 

added a lot of time onto their total repayment, and I 

think that that time should count, especially if it is 

time that is due to the servicers’ processing.

In addition, we also have examples where 

servicers have steered borrowers away from income-driven

payments and other qualifying payments and have placed 

borrowers into deferments and forbearances. And I think 

that there needs to be a way that we can capture that 
77

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

time in -- into the cancellation program as well, since 

it's so well documented by a number of State AGs, as I'm 

sure Joe will talk about, as well as the Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau. Thank you.

MR. TOTONCHI: Justin.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Thanks, Emil. Just wanted to 

express our strong support for counting military 

deferment and forbearance here. I just wanted to put some 

numbers on that for folks. According to a 2020 report by 

the Student Borrower Protection Center, the average 

military deferment can actually last as long as 30

months, which is somewhat incredible when we're talking 

about potentially two years of forgiveness during a 

period of time when these individuals are performing

public service in uniform. So, I just want to express our 

strong support. Thank you.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. Joe.

MR. SANDERS: Yeah, similar to what Bethany 

and Persis discussed, State Attorneys General have 

documented instances of forbearance steering, instances 

of extended periods between PAYE and REPAYE, and, in 

general, instances of situations where forbearance was 

not the appropriate repayment plan for the borrower. 

Finding a way to capture those instances of 

inappropriate forbearance, I think is something that 
78

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

would be very valuable to borrowers. The states that have 

documented this type of activity in lawsuits include 

Illinois, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, 

Mississippi, New Jersey, Washington. So, these are --

these allegations are widespread. 

And I know that in the instance of 

Massachusetts lawsuit, the Department has come up with 

some kind of a way to credit some of those payments to 

them. I'm wondering whether that is potentially a 

template or a model that could be applied to their 

situations.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Joe. Jen, did you 

have a response or a comment?

MS. HONG: Right, not to Joe's point. I was 

just looking back to Bethany's question about expanding 

beyond cancer deferment. I just wanted to point out that 

deferments are specified in statute. So, we don't have a 

whole lot of flexibility with expanding the deferments, 

but maybe in forbearance. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. 

MS. HONG: I'm understanding the cut --

counting between these delays, the delay in time, cut 

that one. But as far as the cancer treatment, all the 

deferments are codified in statute.

MS. LILLY: Heather had a point in the chat 
79

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

about FMLA being counted as full-time employment already 

but not as a qualifying payment. So, I don't want to get 

messy on this. I think just the general sentiment --

however you guys would do it -- is that, since your --

since the deferment recognizes the cancer treatment is 

important, I would want other medical conditions to also 

be recognized in however you guys want to structure that. 

I'm flexible on that. So, thank you.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Bethany. Joe, I 

see you have a lingering raised hand, or is that a new 

comment?

MR. SANDERS: It's a very quick thing based 

on what Jennifer just said. Am I correct that you're only 

counting deferments under this new proposed language and 

not forbearances as -- is that right?

MS. HONG: Trying to get off mute. Sorry. 

No, I think -- Vanessa, if you want to scroll down with 

that “forbearances” just over there, right. Yeah. Both.

MR. TOTONCHI: Now, I really am assuming you 

have a lingering hand up, Joe. At this stage, I'd like to 

--

MR. SANDERS: No, no, sorry. It's a comment 

(interposing). 

MR. TOTONCHI: It is still a comment? 

(interposing). 
80

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

MR. SANDERS: No, no, no. No, no, no, I'm 

good. Thanks, Emil. Sorry.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks for the clarity. At 

this stage, I'd like to ask for a temperature check for 

tentative agreement on the proposed redline regarding 

subtopic “allow certain deferments and forbearances.” 

Please, show me your thumbs. 

I see Persis and Joe have their thumbs 

down. Quick succinct points on your down thumbs.

MS. YU: I think there are critical 

categories that are missing in this category.

MR. TOTONCHI: Do you want to expand on any 

specifics, Persis?

MS. YU: The ones that I mentioned before: 

the -- the steering into forbearances, as well as the 

time period in between recertification.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. And, before Joe,

Jennifer, a quick comment.

MS. HONG: Yeah, just -- I just want to make 

sure we capture -- I mean, part of the point of this 

discussion is to capture the other options that you guys 

have in mind. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Yeah, so Persis, if you 

wouldn't mind -- I know you've now said it twice, but if 

you can now put it in the chat, that would be great, and 
81

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

we could capture it. Joe.

MR. SANDERS: Similar to Persis, a lot of 

people got put into inappropriate forbearances and it 

would be great to see some way to count that.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you for the feedback. 

Moving along, the next subtopic is, “Stop the clock 

restart upon consolidation.” Jennifer, could you start us 

off?

MS. HONG: Yes. We wanted to get your 

thoughts on stopping the clock restart upon 

consolidation. We're concerned that the clock resets on 

direct loans when the borrower consolidates. And we're 

proposing at least giving credit for the -- basically 

just pausing the clock restart, including those that are 

also non-Direct loans as well. 

So, the language on this was kind of more 

of like a subtle kind of interpretation that we had 

taken. And I want to say -- it's on page three of the 

proposed text, and striking some of that language under 

part B, C -- wait, subpart C and capital B “at the time”. 

I think it's captured under there. We captured it at any

time, at any point. But it is to get your thoughts on 

stopping the clock restart upon consolidation.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. Marjorie.

MS. DORIME-WILLIAMS: So, this is, well, my, 
82

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

again, personal perspective. Yes. And I think the 

challenge with this is that often borrowers don't know 

that that's what's going to happen. So, you -- you might 

have 10 different loan servicers, and so, you might 

consolidate, and then find out, you've been making 

payments for 5 years and that's all gone, and you're 

starting over. 

So, I don't even really understand the 

purpose for why that was the case, but I certainly 

support any language that would give borrowers credit for 

any payments made, even if they've consolidated their 

loans afterwards.

MR. TOTONCHI: Daniel.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Much like Marjorie, I also 

have a personal story in this particular area, and this 

was an issue that I faced as well with the clock restart.

So, I'm personally -- I'm highly supportive 

of this. I just can't help to call out, though, and ask 

the question on the cha -- As part of this section, I 

also know that much of the language around PLUS loans has 

been stricken. So, are we to read that as an inclusion of 

all PLUS loans under loan forgiveness? That section does 

talk about excluding PLUS loans, and again, personal 

interest, but as a PLUS borrower, I'm certainly 

interested and, on behalf of PLUS borrowers who would be 
83

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

interested in having that question answered.

MR. TOTONCHI: If you could, at this stage, 

Daniel, put the question in the chat. Thank you. Bobby.

MR. AYALA: I just want to echo Marjorie and 

Daniel's statements (audio) in total support of this, but 

also kind of relay some stories that I've heard about 

people abandoning -- even wanting to restart or put their 

loans into consolidation because of the restart. And a 

point of clarification is, was this the issue that was 

addressed with the announcement today and so we're 

looking to expand this into rulemaking because it is 

temporary? Or -- okay, I can see -- so, is that a “yes”? 

MS. HONG: Yes, Bobby. I mean, several of 

the proposals that we're enacting today under the 

temporary waivers, to the extent possible, we've included 

them here for permanent change -- permanent proposed 

change, depending on how we feel about all these things. 

So, there are some issues that we may be limited on 

because we don't have the wide authority that the 

temporary waiver provides. But for the most part, many of 

these issues are similar. And I see my good colleague 

chiming in here. Brian.

MR. SIEGEL: Yeah, right. I was just going 

to address the PLUS loan question quickly, but I'll leave

it (interposing).
84

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

MR. AYALA: That was actually one of my 

follow-ups. So, I'm glad everybody's kind of bringing 

that up. So, I'll just -- I'll stop talking. Thanks.

MR. SIEGEL: Okay. PLUS loans are eligible 

for Public Service Loan Forgiveness. The language we are 

proposing to strike regarding PLUS loans relates to 

income-driven repayment plans, which PLUS loans are 

generally not eligible for. 

That's been one of the restrictions or 

limitations that has made it harder for borrowers to --

for PLUS borrowers to reach Public Service Loan 

Forgiveness. PLUS loans, Parent PLUS loans, cannot be 

repaid under some of the income contingent repayment 

plans or the income-based repayment plan. And that is 

statutory.

MR. TOTONCHI: Jeri.

MS. O’BRYAN-LOSEE: Hi. I was one of the 

people who had to decide if I was going to go into Public 

Service Loan Forgiveness because I had two loans that in 

an application process were moved into Public Service 

Loan Forgiveness, but my FFEL loan was not. So, I had 

been making tons of payments without knowing that my FFEL 

loan had not been moved. And thankfully, I was credited 

through the temporary loan forgiveness program 91 

payments, which helps, but I had to decide if it was 
85

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

going to be worth it for me to even go into the loan 

forgiveness. 

So, I just want to say that. And just one 

other point about the Parent PLUS loans that are only 

eligible for people in ICRs right now, Income Contingent 

Repayment, it would be great -- again, I represent about 

37,000 professional staff and faculty -- and it would be 

great for our younger members, whose parents helped them 

through public service or through their education, but 

took out Parent PLUS loans, and the parents don't work in 

public service, but the student does, and the person who 

took out -- so, the person who took out and signed for 

the loan did not, but the student that benefited from the 

parent being able to help them, they are only able to use 

Public Service Loan Forgiveness if they're in the public 

service. So, if there was a way to be able to revert that 

back to the student, so that then the loan would be in 

public service, no matter what. 

If I'm not making any sense -- I feel like 

I've gone off the rails a little bit on this -- but all 

you Parent PLUS loan people, you know what I mean.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Jeri, for your 

comments. At this stage, I'll ask for a temperature check 

for tentative agreement on the subtopic of stop the clock 

restart upon consult -- upon consultation, and my 
86

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

apologies. Let me see your thumbs.

Okay, I do not see any down thumbs. Thank 

you for the feedback. Just before we move on to the next 

subtopic, just a quick note, we only have several people

-- actually five people -- in the waiting room, and we 

are about 15 minutes away from public comments. So, to 

those who are in the audience who will be making a public 

comment or would be added to the waitlist, please join 

the waiting room so we can make sure we have a robust 

public comment period today. Okay, let's move on. The 

next subtopic is about the lender notifications. 

Jennifer.

MS. HONG: Great. So, I again apologize to 

Jeri because we -- just don't have any proposed language. 

We will come back with all the FFEL language changes 

here. 

But for those borrowers that for whatever 

reason do not avail themselves of consolidating prior to 

next October, we want to make sure that lenders send 

annual disclosures to borrowers informing them of how 

they may access PSLF benefits, and to respond to any 

verbal or written questions about PSLF from borrowers. 

I take it back. I think we do have this in 

this section. The disclosures would include information 

about consolidation and the steps to take if the borrower 
87

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

wishes to pursue consolidation. Again, we just want to 

make sure that borrowers are well-informed and are 

provided consistent information from their lenders. And 

let me just check back in the language. I think we did do 

that.

MR. TOTONCHI: Okay. Let's just take a quick 

look.

MS. HONG: And we did. That's on the last 

page.

MR. TOTONCHI: Remember that can be shared. 

Thank you. Alright. Excellent. Any initial comments or 

questions? Michaela.

MS. MARTIN: This could have been an answer

to another question and I apologize if it was. Are folks 

able to -- if they are not -- I’m going back to -- if 

they're not currently working where they were when they 

made that eligible payment, but made an initial 

application that was denied or delayed to such an extent 

that perhaps they did actually qualify, are they able to 

still resubmit that when their initial application was 

submitted during the time they should have qualified?

MS. HONG: Can you walk us through that one

model another time Michaela?

MS. MARTIN: Yeah. So, I think -- 

MS. HONG: (interposing) -- that scenario 
88

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

again?

MS. MARTIN: -- there are a lot of instances 

where folks were -- have applied, right? And were either 

denied or -- it's just taken a very long time when 

perhaps some of those should have been, because that 

processing rate was so low and so long that they might no 

longer work where they did in that initial application 

that, potentially, maybe shouldn't have been approved. 

Are they able to reapply, even though they may no longer 

be at that place of employment? Or is this you have to be 

working there at the time of application (audio)? 

MR. TOTONCHI: Brian.

MR. SIEGEL: As part of the announcement 

today, the Department announced that it was going to be 

looking at a lot of those denials from the past, so --

and hopefully, that process will catch any that should 

have been approved and were not. It will also look into 

developing a reconsideration process and -- which would 

allow a borrower who was previously denied to say, "You 

made a mistake." So, I -- hopefully, those processes will 

address the problems that have occurred in the past and 

the changes we are proposing now -- well, we expect to 

eliminate that going forward.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Brian. Persis.

MS. YU: Thank you. So, I recognize that the 
89

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

announcement today is intended largely to address some of 

these concerns. But one of my concerns is that 

disclosures are just often insufficient to protect 

borrowers' rights. They can get buried, I -- and so, I 

guess one of my questions is, what remedies do borrowers 

have if they are not given proper disclosures or if they 

have asked for information or --? We've seen a number of 

different cases where borrowers have -- were FFEL 

borrowers in particular have been given inaccurate 

information. And so, what can we do to ensure that where 

that happens or where information is kind of slipped in 

there but not made readily available that we can make 

sure that borrowers are able to get their qualifying 

payments?

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Persis. I just 

want to recognize that Greg has come to the table on 

behalf of Dependent Students. Jaye.

MR. O’CONNELL: So, the placement of the 

disclosure for FFEL -- as I’m reading this, I just want 

to be sure I understand -- is within the bill statement 

section. But there’s a reference to an annual disclosure 

in the issue paper. So, just reconciling those two 

things. Bill statements are more frequent than annual, 

and I think that’s where you put this, which I don’t have 

a concern, I just want clarification.
90

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

MS. HONG: Thanks for pointing that out, it 

is consistent with the issue paper. We were thinking of 

annual disclosure, so we’ll make sure to have that in the 

right place.

MR. O’CONNELL: Okay.

MR. TOTONCHI: Bethany.

MS. LILLY: Well, I want to echo Persis’ 

point about folks needing more help than just a notice, 

and I appreciate it in the issue paper that ED said that 

they would commit to responding to any verbal or written 

questions about Public Service Loan Forgiveness from

borrowers. I would -- I do think -- I just really want to

echo Persis’ concerns there. I think, folks are not going 

to -- a written notice is not usually enough for most 

people, and actually getting some help and having folks 

answer questions is really important.

MR. TOTONCHI: Joe.

MR. SANDERS: Hi, just to quickly build on 

what Persis and Bethany have laid out, State Attorneys 

General have brought a series of claims based on 

affirmative misrepresentations by servicers, even in 

instances where the Department says you need to tell them 

that there are repayment plans too, so the Department

says disclose. 

Presumably servicers do put that in, but
91

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

then their agents are at times incentivized to pick up 

calls quickly, and so there are misrepresentations made 

in those calls that are contradictory to the disclosure. 

So, I think that providing borrowers with more is 

probably needed in order for (audio). 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Joe. Jeri.

MS. O’BRYAN-LOSEE: Hi, thanks. Yeah. I just 

want us all to remember that we have huge populations of 

people who were dissuaded in the last -- especially in 

the last administration’s treatment of people trying to 

get Public Service Loan Forgiveness and trying to get 

people to re-register and maybe even believe in some of 

the correspondence they may get, because -- bad actors, 

let’s just say. So, I think we just need to keep in mind 

it goes back to what Bethany said and what Persis said 

about getting it out to people, and especially those 

people who are affected and may have had that experience.

MR. TOTONCHI: Jennifer.

MS. HONG: Just quickly in response to that. 

The issues we’re discussing here with this committee are 

effectuating regulatory change, but as Ian described 

earlier today, there’s a lot of things happening 

operationally to improve the program and to conduct the 

types of outreach and communication to borrowers that you 

all were just describing. So, that is happening on FSA’s 
92

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

front.

MR. TOTONCHI: Jeri, do you have another 

comment? Okay. Justin.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Thanks so much. I just kind 

of wanted to add on to some of the sentiments that are 

already being conveyed about notices and disclosures. I 

think it’s important, I’m not sure it’s necessarily 

sufficient, but I also think -- I think this is what 

maybe Jennifer was alluding to. It’s important to 

consider how these communications are getting out to 

borrowers. I think there are some estimates that there’s, 

for instance, in a loan -- service members, 16,000 

service members with loans that would qualify for 

consolidation but that aren’t Direct Loans, so presumably 

some or many of those are -- old FFEL loans. And of 

course, service members are moving relatively frequently 

from place to place, and so the nature of how these 

disclosures are getting to these individuals is an 

important consideration. Thank you.

MR. TOTONCHI: Brian, I see you raised your 

hand.

MR. SIEGEL: Yeah. As someone who's worked 

on these programs for too many years, the Department in -

- under many different administrations has tried 

different ways of communicating with borrowers. And all 
93

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

in good faith, we've tried emails, regular mail, phone, 

(audio), social media, every possible way. Sometimes 

borrowers just don't pay attention to this and don't read 

the material. So, anything -- we've reached out -- under 

this administration, we've reached out to Attorneys 

General and other state regulators, and certainly we’d

encourage all the groups around this table to reach out

to the people that you contact with, and just -- as we 

make more information available, remind your members and 

people you contact with that the information is 

available. So, any way you can help us in getting that 

information out would go a ways [sic] toward making sure 

the borrowers have the information.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thanks, Brian. I just want to

recognize that Dixie was pushing -- yeah, here’s Dixie,

okay. Dixie’s back on behalf of Dependent Students. And I 

want to point out that we have about two minutes, so I’ll 

either have to call it, right at public comments, or, if 

Persis, Bethany, and Dixie can be quick, we can maybe get 

all three of your comments in.

MS. YU: I will try to be very quick. I 

think the point that Brian raised underscores why

“disclosures” is insufficient. The folks that we work 

with -- they are low income, they have unreliable access 

to Internet, to email, they move quite frequently, and so 
94

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

communicating with them is a challenge and in getting --. 

So, disclosures are insufficient and a lot of FFEL owners

do not have the financial interest of getting these 

borrowers into these programs, and so, it's important to 

build into the regulations some kind of safety valve so 

that we can count the time, if they are missing time 

because of somebody else's misconduct. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. And I want to see 

if we can sneak in a temperature check before this. 

Bethany.

MS. LILLY: I will be really fast. I just 

want to say that this is one of the reasons that I have 

been harping on automation this entire time, because that 

is the way we get to folks. It's not sending them 

notices, it’s not doing all the rest of it. It’s 

automating the process as much as we possibly can. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Dixie, you have the final 

comments.

MS. SAMANIEGO: Alrighty, I'll be quick. So,

I also really want to emphasize the point Persis and

Bethany just made. Super, super important. Also, coming 

from low-income communities and having -- knowing of 

folks who are under these different loan programs --

we’re all poor, we’re all people of color, all first gen. 

And the issue is not us, the issue is on the Department. 
95

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

And so, kind of, the way that Brian and -- I'm not trying 

to characterize you or what you said -- but the way it 

came off, to me, is that it's our fault, and we have --

we're at fault, when we’re not, when low-income people 

are not, when people who are receiving these 

communications are not, and the onus falls back onto the 

Department of Education and not the people under these 

programs. And so, the miscommunication very clearly is on 

the Department of Education and not the people under

these programs, point period blank, and that’s what I 

wanted to say.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. Unfortunately, 

folks -- Jaye, unfortunately we won’t be able to get to 

your comment now. I'm actually going to postpone the 

temperature check until tomorrow morning. We’ll pick up 

from this tomorrow, okay? Thank you for everyone's 

participation. 

We’re now entering our 30-minute public 

comment period. I believe our first public commenter is 

U.S. Representative Kathy Manning. Representative Manning

-- here you are. Good afternoon, Representative Manning. 

Can you please speak so we make sure that we can hear 

you? Can you hear me, Representative Manning? 

Representative Manning, can you hear me? Is 

her audio enabled? It is enabled. We don’t know what the 
96

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

problem with the audio is, we’ll see if we can clear it 

up.

Can we please admit the next person? I 

understand that the next commenter -- public commenter

is, and I apologize if I don’t pronounce this correctly, 

is Mikyeila Cordero (phonetic) representing herself.

MS. CORDERO: That is correct.

MR. TOTONCHI: Ms. Cordero, please proceed. 

Are you able to turn on your camera?

MS. CORDERO: I can. So sorry about that.

MR. TOTONCHI: That’s okay.

MS. CORDERO: Can you see me now?

MR. TOTONCHI: Please proceed. Yes.

MS. CORDERO: Okay. First of all, I want to 

thank -- I'm going to take a moment to say thank you for 

allowing me to share my experiences today. 

As you mentioned, my name is Mikyeila 

Cordero, I attended the International Academy of Design 

and Technology from 2003 to 2006. Like others, I was 

following my dreams and had supportive parents who wanted 

me to have the education needed to attain them. 

As I share my experience, I'm going to 

leave names out, but should you be interested in

additional details, I’m available at your convenience. 

The International Academy of Design and 
97

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

Technology promised me the world and fell short on every 

promise. The areas that they thrived in, however, were

their abilities to use high pressure, sales and marketing 

tactics to increase admission, and frighten potential 

students into believing that they would be unable to 

start school if they didn’t sign up in that moment. 

My parents received multiple phone calls in

a day stating that I would not start on time if they

didn't encourage me to sign up in that moment. In 

addition, the Financial Aid Department was encouraged to 

pressure family members and students to take any measures 

necessary to finance those dreams. They used military 

benefits allotted to me from my father, who served in the 

army during the Vietnam Era. They pressured them into 

taking out continuous loans, under the guise that tuition 

costs would increase if there was ever a point I had to 

take a break from my education. 

During my education, it became apparent 

that this was not going to be worth the investment. I 

spoke with the dean of our Department who assured me that 

they were working on their accreditation, and that they 

would start a Master’s program that would be instituted 

that would help me go even farther in my career. 

At this point, there were two options for 

me: continue down the path so I had some sort of degree,
98

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

or drop out and owe tens of thousands of dollars for 

nothing. After my graduation, I had to rebrand myself to

show off skills to even be employable. The job placement 

opportunities they promised were nothing more than a Dring binder in an office that consisted of entry level 

retail opportunities. The salary expectations they set 

were not accurate, nor were the merchandise manager or 

buying positions that they stated most of their graduates 

would receive. 

I had potential employers laugh in my face 

when I said I went to school at the International 

Academy, and others basically said that they had no 

knowledge of the school. In 2016, I attempted to enroll 

at ASU and was told that not a single credit would 

transfer and apply at their school, and I would need to 

start from scratch, or the equivalent of a high school 

senior, which included retaking my SAT. After that 

experience, I learned and educated myself about the 

borrower defense to repayment application and submitted 

it.

MR. TOTONCHI: 30 seconds.

MS. CORDERO: I waited for four years hoping

for some sort of resolution, and it was during this time 

that I found out how many students were in the same 

position as me. That should be comforting, but it’s 
99

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

infuriating. 

In 2020, I received a letter declining my 

application, and have since spent my time talking with 

attorneys, congressmen, and groups of students online to 

find a resolution. My request to you is that, as you have 

these discussions, you think of the veterans’ families 

and students that suffered financially and emotionally at 

the hands of these for-profit institutions. What should 

have been a bright (interposing) --

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. Time’s -- Time’s

up, I’m sorry. Thank you --

MS. CORDERO: (interposing) Yeah. It’s time?

MR. TOTONCHI: -- for your comments. 

MS. CORDERO: Thank you.

MR. TOTONCHI: I would now like to call U.S. 

Representative Kathy Manning. Representative Manning, you 

have three minutes for public comments.

MS. MANNING: Good afternoon, I’m 

Congresswoman Kathy Manning. I’m proud to represent North

Carolina’s 6th Congressional District. This negotiated 

rulemaking is an opportunity to protect student borrowers

from burdensome debt resulting from institutional fraud 

and misrepresentation. It’s also an opportunity to 

reorient the Department’s implementation of the Higher 

Education Act to better fulfill congressional intent. 
100

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

Despite bipartisan, bicameral opposition, a 

new borrower defense rule took effect last year that cut 

in half a borrower’s window to file a claim. The rule 

also eliminated the ability of students enrolled at the 

same fraudulent institutions to obtain group discharges 

and eliminated the right of appeal. Under the existing 

rule, just 3 percent of the loans associated with 

misconduct will be canceled, and even before this rule 

went into effect, Department officials regularly 

dismissed borrower claims after only cursory reviews, 

leaving hundreds of thousands of claims languishing. 

The current Department of Education has the 

chance to right this wrong by restoring critical borrower 

protections and putting in place new regulations that 

restore borrowers’ finances and deter fraudulent 

colleges’ behavior. Establishing a default position of 

adjudicating claims on a group basis, as the Department 

now proposes, will also help guard against the kind of 

backlog that has stymied borrowers for too long. 

Another welcome proposal is the 

Department’s suggestion to treat misrepresentation of an 

institution’s tax status as something that can give rise 

to a borrower default claim. My constituents have 

expressed concern about the stark changes at St. Andrew’s 

University since it came under the control of a for-
101

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

profit college magnate and his associates. Since 

takeover, St. Andrew’s has -- St. Andrew’s enrollment has 

increased by more than 90 percent, largely by adding 

career-focused online programs, typical of for-profit 

institutions, subverting St. Andrew’s non-profit liberal 

arts educational legacy. 

My concern with shadow for-profit actors 

drove my introduction, along with Representatives Lucy 

McBath and Sara Jacobs, of the For-Profit College 

Conversion Accountability Act. Institutions like the nowdefunct Center for Excellence in Higher Education, 

Corinthian Colleges, ITT, and (interposing) --

MR. TOTONCHI: 30 seconds remaining.

MS. MANNING: -- demonstrate why the need 

for increased protection for students and stronger 

accountability is required. The often-sudden demise of 

fraudulent for-profit colleges demonstrates the need to 

reform closed school discharge process. Affected students 

are disproportionately lower-income Pell Grant 

recipients, and Black and Latino students. Very few are 

able to transfer all of their credits to stay on track to

complete at other institutions. I welcome the restoration 

of (interposing) --

MR. TOTONCHI: I’m so sorry. (inaudible). 

MS. MANNING: I thank you for the 
102

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

opportunity to speak to you today and I hope you will 

read my full testimony when it’s submitted. Thank you.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you. Our next public 

commenter is Tasha Berkhalter (phonetic), veteran. Ms. 

Berkhalter, can you turn on your camera, please?

MS. BERKHALTER: Can you hear me?

MR. TOTONCHI: We can hear you. 

MS. BERKHALTER: Okay.

MR. TOTONCHI: Are you able to turn on your 

camera?

MS. BERKHALTER: I don’t think I can.

MR. TOTONCHI: No problem. Please proceed. 

You have three minutes.

MS. BERKHALTER: Well, good afternoon, my 

name’s Tasha Berkhalter, and I am an Army veteran from 

Lima, Ohio. I would like to tell you a bit of my story. 

After serving in the Army for more than five years, I was 

honorably discharged for medical reasons. 

I wanted to find a path in my life to make 

things better for myself and my family. My goal was to 

pursue a career in the FBI as a criminal behavioral 

analyst in forensics. I went to ITT Tech from 2006 to 

2010, earning a Bachelor’s Degree of Science. At the 

time, ITT Tech seemed like a good option. It was 

advertised that they were a high-tech criminal justice 
103

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

program, and admissions staff told me that the GI Bill 

that I received from the Army would cover my full 

tuition. I was told that they assisted in job placement 

after graduation, and I would have a job in my field in 

no time. 

The first red flag I encountered was when I 

tried transferring to a different school my sophomore 

year. I was told not only that my credits would not 

transfer, and the books we were using were outdated, but 

that I would have to start completely over. 

After being frustrated and speaking to my 

Chair at ITT Tech, I relied yet again on the promises 

that they made to me, and I decided to stay and finish my 

degree. Unfortunately, my trust put me back in a position 

to continually be lied to by ITT Tech. It was not a hightech school at all, yet I still had to foot the bill for 

a low-quality education. The GI Bill did not cover my 

tuition, and I had to take out additional federal and 

personal student loans to pay for my schooling. 

Whenever I told employers at job interviews 

I went to ITT Tech, I was instantly shown the door, and I 

wasn’t the only one. I graduated with about 50 students, 

and of that 50, I know of only two that have been able to 

find jobs in the field that we went to school for, but 

those jobs don’t require a degree. 
104

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

Being married with four children and one on 

the way has been a challenge because it’s hard to provide 

a comfortable life for them and to keep a stable home 

with consistency because I cannot find a job in my field. 

I used my whole GI Bill, yet they still 

made me take out additional loans, and I still have no 

real degree. I have no GI Bill to go back to school, and 

an extreme amount of debt. I have dealt with -- I’m sorry 

-- I have dealt with stress, anxiety, and depression over 

the whole ordeal for years. It’s been a strain on my 

marriage, my children, and my livelihood. I didn’t just 

miss my one shot to use my GI Bill, I was overwhelmed by 

my student loan debt. I’ve lost homes -- (interposing).

MR. TOTONCHI: 30 seconds left.

MS. BERKHALTER: -- I had about $100,000 in 

student loans, and I was successful, finally -- as of 

September 7th, they just approved my borrower’s defense 

application, but I did want to stand for other veterans 

that have been treated unfairly, and I thank you for your 

time.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you for your comment,

Ms. Berkhalter. Our next public commenter is Nadine 

Santos, from the -- a graduate student of Full Sail 

University representing herself. Ms. Santos, are you 

here? Ms. Santos, if you are here, please turn on your 
105

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

video if possible. Oh, excellent. Good afternoon, Ms. 

Santos. Can you please turn on your audio to make sure we 

can hear you?

MS. SANTOS: Yes, I’m here.

MR. TOTONCHI: Excellent, you have three 

minutes to comment.

MS. SANTOS: Alright, thank you. Good 

afternoon, and thank you all for giving me the 

opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Nadine 

Santos, I was born and raised in Long Island, New York, 

and I am a graduate of Full Sail University. I’ve

graduated with my Associate’s in Recording Arts in 2001, 

and I am currently the vice president of Programming and 

Artist Relations for Music Choice, and I love my job. I 

am so grateful for all that I have been able to 

experience throughout my almost 20-year career in the 

music industry, from programming some of the biggest 

radio stations in the country, to working with some of 

the biggest names in the business, to now running the 

programming for music television across almost 60 million 

homes in the U.S. now. I’m very blessed, and yet very 

aware that my success came from the foundation that was 

built off of my education at Full Sail. 

I started off at a traditional university 

and then moved on to a smaller college first, but I 
106

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

couldn’t find my place where the education focused on 

music and my passions in a real way until I came to Full 

Sail. I ultimately spent money and wasted time at 

traditional colleges for an industry that is anything but 

traditional. 

It’s important to me that people understand 

that schools like Full Sail even exist, and the 

opportunities within these fields are there because of 

the educators and the staff who understand what these 

non-traditional career paths entail, from both a 

technical and a business perspective. 

I’ve worked with Full Sail grads, I’ve 

hired Full Sail grads, because I can confidently say 

that, in the music world, there is no student more 

qualified or prepared than ones that come from this 

foundation. 

I was educated and prepared for the future 

steps with realistic expectations that I had to pay my 

dues, because nothing in life or this business is 

guaranteed. My education and work ethic would have to 

combine to create the success that I desired. 

I’ve worked in programs and in recording 

studios that mirrored what was happening at the moment in

the business, and all of that set up to launch my career 

with the highest success opportunity possible. If I had 
107

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

to do it over again, I would have made the decision to go 

sooner, had I known, because of the quality of the 

education and the real-world experience. 

Full Sail graduates learn and work in 

settings that mimic the realities of the business, so 

once you step into the real world, it’s not a shock. That 

type of education is priceless when competing 

(interposing) --

MR. TOTONCHI: 30 seconds.

MS. SANTOS: -- a creative career, and I 

just wanted to say thank you for the time to listening to 

my story, and hopefully my comments today help you to 

understand that not all institutions are created to help 

you really achieve your dreams, but Full Sail’s a place 

where you’re prepared to achieve it and make it reality. 

I’m forever grateful for my education and all the amazing 

alumni and staff that I’ve met through Full Sail. So, 

thank you again.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you, Ms. Santos, for 

your comment. Our next public commenter is Mike Burgess, 

director of policy and outreach at the Disability Rights 

Center of Kansas.

MR. BURGESS: Hi, everyone, and --

MR. TOTONCHI: Hello.

MR. BURGESS: -- thank you for the brief 
108

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

introduction. Again, I’m Mike Burgess, the director of 

policy and outreach with --

MR. TOTONCHI: Three minutes.

MR. BURGESS: Yeah -- the Disability Rights 

Center of Kansas, and I appreciate the opportunity to 

take a couple of minutes here to briefly hit on -- follow 

the discussion on the first day regarding the Total and 

Permanent Disability program, and I think that is a 

wonderful program. I appreciate the Department taking the 

steps that it has to try and make this work better for 

individuals with disabilities. 

Part of my work at the Disability Rights 

Center, and more the Protection and Advocacy System in 

Kansas, along with the Client Protection -- Client -- the 

CAP Program, Client Assistance Program. And so, part of 

the work that we do is trying to help all the different 

programs that impact people with disabilities and make 

them work better, so, like I said, we definitely applaud 

the work that you’re doing. I just want to encourage -- I 

know that there’s been some discussion with improvements, 

and I just want to support those as much as we can to 

help improve -- expand the program for folks who’ve had a 

disability for five years to try and make the program as 

automatic as possible, to look at documentation 

requirements, as we know, across -- as a backdrop. People
109

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

with disabilities to do their activities of daily living, 

they have added medical and service provider 

appointments. Just daily life is a lot harder. 

And then you look at -- they typically may 

interact with as many as 20 different agencies and 

providers, it’s just a lot of -- So, anywhere where we 

can eliminate and reduce burden and paperwork is a win, 

so I just want to encourage you to continue to do that 

everywhere possible. 

As far as eligibility goes, if you can 

expand the number of SSA categories, that would be great, 

expanding the allowable SSA documentation. And, I’m 

sorry, that just got to -- with only three minutes I’m 

trying to cover -- hit the finer points as quickly as I 

can. 

But one other piece that I think was part 

of the discussion, but I want to reiterate it, too, just 

to look at -- well, this administration -- I want to

applaud the efforts that you’re doing -- if you can put 

some of these pieces into the regulation, like that 

automation, the data match, and some of those other 

pieces to help make those more permanent, that would be a 

win. So, I have -- there are a few other things, but, 

again, I think you get the high notes of what I’m trying 

to -- the point I’m trying to make here, and I appreciate 
110

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

the time to address this, and I appreciate the work all 

of you do, having followed this process. You guys are 

very thorough, and I appreciate the very thoughtful 

approach that you’re doing to try and help make all of 

these programs work for everyone, both from the user 

perspective as well as the administration of them, so 

thank you.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you for your comment, 

Mr. Burgess. The next commenter we have is Joshua Blumm, 

veteran. Hello, Mr. Blumm, can you hear me?

MR. BLUMM: Yeah, I can hear you. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Excellent. You have three 

minutes to make your comment.

MR. BLUMM: Okay. I’ll just dive right in. 

My name’s Joshua Blumm, I’m from Chico, California, and 

I’m the son of a Marine Corps veteran. I decided in 2019 

that I wanted to go back to school to get my MSW in 

social work, and I wanted to work for military families 

through the VA, and that is when I found Walden 

University. 

When I was enrolling at Walden University, 

I made it clear to them from day one that I intended to 

use my father’s GI Bill benefits to pay for my tuition as 

well as any student loan debt that might accumulate in 

the process. Walden told me I was eligible to use my 
111

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

father’s GI Bill benefits at their school, and they even 

connected me with the Walden office that handles veteran 

certifications to help me get signed up. Walden also 

encouraged me to take out student loans via FAFSA, and 

they -- as I waited for my benefits to kick in and said 

that I would be reimbursed by the VA at the end of -- a 

year later -- in the form of a lump sum payment. 

They collected my father’s information, 

including his official military discharge form, and his 

DD214, and sent all of my paperwork to VA at the end of 

each quarter. 

By the time the VA informed me over the 

phone that I was too old to use my father’s GI Bills, I 

was already four terms into my studies. I had taken out 

student loans, and I was pretty invested at that point 

and too invested to start over at another school. 

Walden’s administrators deliberately misled me, 

completely pulling the wool over my eyes in order to get 

me to enroll. 

Now I have student loan debt totaling more 

than $60,000, and anger that they not only deceived me, 

but also my father, who was only trying to help me pursue 

something that I was passionate about. Now he feels this 

sense of guilt because I have student loan debt. He’s 

also angry that we were deceived by the veterans’ office 
112

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

and administrators at Walden, but especially because they 

were supposed to be on his side, to say the least. I now 

know that Walden has a history --

MR. TOTONCHI: 30 seconds.

MR. BLUMM: Okay. Yeah, I now know that 

Walden has a history with this type of activity after I 

did some research on them online, and that’s why I’m 

asking you today to make sure colleges like Walden cannot 

get away with misleading and lying to veterans and their 

families, especially the administrators in their own 

veterans’ office. My father served this country honorably 

and for a very long time, and this is the thanks that he 

gets. So. Thank you for your time.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you for your (audio) 

comment, Mr. Blumm.

MR. BLUMM: Yeah. Thank you, I appreciate 

the work you guys are doing.

MR. TOTONCHI: (audio) is Nicole Wilson, 

veteran. Hello, Ms. Wilson, can you hear us?

MS. WILSON: Yes, I can hear you.

MR. TOTONCHI: Great, you have three 

minutes.

MS. WILSON: Okay, so, good afternoon. My 

name is Nicole Wilson. I’m from Akron, Ohio. I have 

served in the military off and on from 2002 to 2020, 
113

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

serving active duty in the United States Navy, Navy 

Reserves, and the Ohio Army National Guard. 

I wanted to be a nurse for 12 years to help 

families not go through what I did before my mother 

passed away. I have been going to school trying to 

achieve this dream now for 11 years, and unfortunately, 

after two terrible experiences with for-profit colleges, 

(audio) has delayed my dream and drained my GI Bill 

benefits and left me with massive student loan debt. 

I first attended Brown Mackie College to 

earn my LPN. At Brown Mackie, they promised a quick,

flexible program, but in reality, the program offered no 

flexibility for working adults. My graduation date was 

delayed because I had to retake courses after missing 

just one day of class. 

In addition, I was told when I first had my 

visit at campus that the GI Bill would cover all my 

expenses, but after I enrolled, the financial office 

informed me that my first advisor was incorrect, that I 

would have to take out student loans to cover my balance. 

When I finished Brown Mackie College, the 

Nursing Board informed me that I would need -- I would 

likely need to take additional remedial courses before I 

could take the NCLEX, because Brown Mackie had not 

adequately prepared me for the exam. Most students in my 
114

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

graduating class did not pass the exam, and few are 

actually working in the field despite Brown Mackie’s 

promise of 95 percent placement in the field of study. 

After my experience at Brown Mackie, I 

decided to pursue my RN. Many schools had long waiting 

lists for their programs, so I ended up attending Bryant 

& Stratton College. Bryant & Stratton promised students 

could be a nurse in just two years, and that the school 

had no waiting list. The schedule would be flexible for 

working adults. In reality, the school had no 

flexibility, the program took longer than two years, and 

the quality of the program was extremely poor.

MR. TOTONCHI: 30 seconds.

MS. WILSON: We had to participate in 

clinicals that were two hours away because no local 

hospital believed Bryant & Stratton students were 

adequately instructed. The best instructors from Bryant & 

Stratton left to teach elsewhere after being asked to 

teach classes they were not qualified to teach. In 

closing, both schools did not adequately prepare me for 

what I was trying to go to school for.

MR. TOTONCHI: Sorry, time is up, Ms. 

Wilson. Thank you so much for your comment.

MS. WILSON: Thank you. 

MR. TOTONCHI: Our next commenter is Erich 
115

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

Renner representing himself. Good afternoon, Mr. Renner.

DR. RENNER: (interposing) much for the 

opportunity to speak. Can you all hear me?

MR. TOTONCHI: Yes, you have three minutes. 

DR. RENNER: I’m Dr. Erich Renner, I’m a 

pediatrician specializing in newborn care at a public 

safety net hospital. I’m an instructor in pediatrics at 

our affiliated medical school, and I’m a borrower, and 

I’m an enrollee in the PSLF program. 

Although I graduated from medical school 12 

years ago, followed with residency at a not-for-profit 

hospital, and have worked at this public hospital for my 

whole career, that loan estimates I’m currently 

approximately four years away from qualification for 

forgiveness. I’d like to advocate for a group of usually 

included stakeholders that appear to have been omitted 

from the rule language modification currently under 

consideration, that is, medical and dental interns and 

residents, and those of us that have occupied that role. 

Specifically, I’d like to suggest that deferments and 

forbearances during months of active public service in 

internship and residency count as payments, as is being 

considered for the Peace Corps and military borrowers 

under proposed rule changes. 

More broadly, I’d like the Department to 
116

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

continue the past practice of inclusion of interns and 

residents with other important groups as future rules are 

considered. 

Medical interns and residents enrolled in 

PSLF provide vital public services during their period of 

deferment or forbearance, which can last three years, 

four years, or more. They secure the public health by 

working long hours on the front lines of emergency 

medicine, inpatient hospital care, primary preventive 

care, and mental health services. 

They work an average of 80 hours per week 

while supporting their families and carrying a median

medical graduate debt of $200,000 per student. 

34CFR, 682210N and 211H already recognize 

medical residents’ vital service and financial hardships 

alongside those of the Peace Corps, members of the 

National Guard, and other armed services. The group is 

specifically enumerated in the rule change currently 

under consideration, and as it stands, we’re allowed 

similar forbearances and deferments. We utilize the same 

form for application. But we’re so far admitted from the 

benefits of this rule change. 

Public health workers like us should not be 

disadvantaged by exclusion from the prospective 

improvements in PSLF rules, especially as we re-
117

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

demonstrate our commitment to our communities and our 

nation by tackling the challenges of the pandemic, and 

building back better in its aftermath. 

I’d like to propose the addition of rules 

language in §685.219 to reinstate the inclusion of 

medical and dental interns and residents in consideration 

with the other vitally important borrower groups in the 

language under consideration. I also urge the Department 

and the committee to extend consideration to the other 

groups enumerated in §682.210 and .211 -- (interposing)

MR. TOTONCHI: 30 seconds.

DR. RENNER: -- who provide services during 

their forbearance like public health service workers, 

rehabilitation trainees, targeted teachers, full-time 

volunteers, and the NOAA Corps. 

Thank you for your time and attention to 

the very important work in improving the PSLF program and 

for helping to make good on the promises made to me and 

my colleagues as we entered public service more than a 

decade ago. I stand available to the committee and to the 

Department if there’s any way I can contribute to this 

important work. Thank you so much.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you for your comments. 

I understand -- I understand that we are moving to our 

waitlist for the first time, because we had two speakers 
118

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

who did not appear. Our first waitlist speaker, and I 

believe our ninth speaker for the public comment, is Kim 

Tran, representing themselves.

MX. TRAN: Hello. Hi.

MR. TOTONCHI: Welcome, welcome. You have 

three minutes for your comments.

MX. TRAN: Okay, thank you. My name is Kim 

Tran, I am a former student from the New England 

Institute of Art, and a representative for students who 

attended the Art Institute, as well as the general 

representative for the defrauded students who filed for 

their borrower defense application. 

These students waited for more than five 

years, but there’s still no updates. In the previous 

hearing I attended several months ago, I pointed out that 

the Department of Education already has documentation of

the -- sorry -- already has documentation of the Art 

Institute’s fraudulence. 

As a representative and borrower myself, 

the last update we ever heard on our application was a 

confirmation email upon submission. How will you handle 

the borrowers’ application piling up in the coming years?

We are aware of the mass discharge approved for the 

students who attended some highly known for-profit 

schools so far, but this does not give me the faith that 
119

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

the Department of Education will properly review each 

application carefully. 

There is still plenty of us who waited for 

years to hear back. Why is the process so difficult when 

these for-profit schools did not deliver any promises 

they made? These schools preyed and burdened us with a 

lifetime of debt. Monday’s hearings felt disheartening 

for us borrowers when the students’ nominees’ experiences 

were not explored for their qualification. 

There is a reason why we believe that the 

students we nominated would have been fit for the 

committee. What will it take to allow the students 

borrowers to participate? We already worked hard proving 

our loans should be discharged, but I didn’t think we 

would have difficulty gaining represented on the 

committee. 

There is no fairness when the affected are 

unrepresented. You had already available students who 

were nominated and openly available to attend and fully 

commit to participate in the rulemaking. You are creating 

a rift between the borrowers’ trust and the Department of 

Education. What do you have to -- what do you fear would 

happen when the student borrowers join the committee? How 

much longer do the borrowers need to wait for the 

students to get a response on their application? 
120

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

Something needs to be done to expedite the 

process. Students should not expect to wait for years 

once the submission begins. For the years we waited, we 

miss out on many opportunities of important life events 

and milestones that could have happened, but we are still 

stuck with these loans. The biggest tragedy --

MR. TOTONCHI: 30 seconds.

MX. TRAN: I’m almost done. The biggest 

tragedy is losing all the time that we cannot get back 

because we put all of our time into fighting for our 

right to discharge these loans. Our lives are on hold, 

and we want to move on from it. This is why I believe we 

need more student borrower representation on the 

committee to happen before the end of this week. Thank 

you for your time.

MR. TOTONCHI: Thank you for your comment.

MX. TRAN: Yeah. 

MR. TOTONCHI: We are at time, so that would 

be the final comment of the day. I want to thank the 

public commenters’ further comments, I want to thank the 

committee for its excellent, hard work all day today. 

In terms of closing, we will get started 

again at 10:00 a.m. Eastern. Please make sure to use the 

appropriate link for the Thursday meeting. We will pick 

back up with PSLF, from where we left off. Thank you all, 
121

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

and see you in the morning. 

Appendix 

Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary 

Education

Zoom Chat Transcript

Affordability and Student Loans Committee - Session 1, 

Day 3, Afternoon, October 6, 2021

DISCLAIMER: 

Note: The following is the output of transcribing from a 

recording. Although the transcription is largely 

accurate; in some cases, it is incomplete or inaccurate 

due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is 

posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the 

meeting, but should not be treated as an authoritative 

record. 

From Daniel (P) -Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

Can we arrange for the a/c to be turned up in the 

room? LOL 

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Institutions (she/her) to 

Everyone: 
122

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

LOL 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

My alternate Suzanne Martindale is going to join to 

ask a question 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

We would like state law considered at first 

consideration. 

From Daniel (P) -Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

I want to suggest another option for reconsideration. 

If a student is included in a group claim and the 

group claim is denied, the student should be able to 

ask for reconsideration as an individual applicant 

with additional information as needed. 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

By law I meant standard 
123

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

Echoing concerns re: Joe and Josh 

From Jeri (P) (she/her), Student Loan Borrowers, Primary 

to Everyone: 

so many operational questions outstanding. 

From Suzanne (state regulators) (A) to Everyone: 

+1 joe and josh 

From Daniel (P) -Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

What is the six year limitation period from? Is this 

from the date of loan origination, the date of filing 

of the BDTR claim, or the date of decision? If 

anything other than the date of loan origination, 

then I would share concerns about the maintenance of 

records. 

From Heather (P) - Accrediting Agencies to Everyone: 

Due process considerations (distinctions between 
124

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

individual or group in terms of timeline, etc); and 

role of accrediting agencies is unclear. 

From Joe (P); State AGs to Everyone: 

Great point Michela. 

From Michaela [P] Ind. Student (she/her) to Everyone: 

Thank you 

From Jessica (P) Proprietary Institutions to Everyone: 

What does the appeals process look like with regard 

to the recovery from institutions. Can you help us 

understand the extract process. 

From Jessica (P) Proprietary Institutions to Everyone: 

Please consider giving institutions the opportunity 

to respond when a final program review is used. 

From Michaela [P] Ind. Student (she/her) to Everyone: 

The alternate for ind students is coming in for a few 
125

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

minutes. 

From Persis (P) Legal Aid (she/her), NCLC to Everyone: 

I am rejoining the table for legal aid 

From Jeri (P) (she/her), Student Loan Borrowers, Primary 

to Everyone: 

Student aid https://studentaid.gov/ to make sure your 

contact info is correct and 

https://studentaid.gov/pslf/ for PSLF 

From Jeri (P) (she/her), Student Loan Borrowers, Primary 

to Everyone: 

Switching with my alternate Jennifer 

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Institutions (she/her) to 

Everyone: 

Employment | Request for further clarification about 

who does and does, or which organizations, meet the 

criteria for PSLF. 
126

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

Does the department also plan to include forbearance 

periods for non-military folks? I'm thinking 

specifically of the required forbearance periods when 

a borrower transitions between eligible payment 

plans, like from PAYE to REPAYE 

From Rachelle Feldman to Everyone: 

+1 on Bethany's question. 

From Greg, A - Dependant to Everyone: 

+1 

From Persis (P) Legal Aid (she/her), NCLC to Everyone: 

Questions for ED re Announcement 1) Consolidation - 

is there anyway that borrowers can know that their 

time will count prior to consolidation; 2) How will 

ED handle disputes on payment histories to ensure 

that borrowers will get all of their time counted; 3) 

Will borrowers be allowed to self-certify employers 

if they are unable to get information given the 
127

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

amount of time that has past; 4) Does ED have any 

plans to provide similar relief related to IDR for 

FFEL borrowers (or even Direct) who have been in 

repayment for more than 20-25 years 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

Also, very curious what this means for folks in 

default? Are there any limitations on their accesso 

to this relief? 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

I would also support Dixie's proposal to have PSLF 

borrowers and borrowers going through the borrower 

defense process to present to us. 

From Persis (P) Legal Aid (she/her), NCLC to Everyone: 

I second Bethany's question - and wonder about 

defaulted FFEL borrowers who are ineligible to 

consolidate 

From Jeri (P) (she/her), Student Loan Borrowers, Primary 

to Everyone: 
128

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

I am back thanks Jennifer! 

From Brady - FMCS to Everyone: 

Asking everyone with outstanding questions that 

aren't fully answered or we can't get to today to add 

them to chat for the record. 

From Rachelle Feldman to Everyone: 

Question for ED: Will you please send us specific 

clarification on how you will count the periods of 

repayment as "payments" on a loan? I think a 

document that explains which periods will count and 

how that math will be done (every 30 days=payment?) 

would really be helpful. 

From Suzanne (state regulators) (A) to Everyone: 

Quick note from fellow regulators: please consider 

relief for parent plus borrowers 

From Persis (P) Legal Aid (she/her), NCLC to Everyone: 
129

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

Agree with Suzanne 

From Jeri (P) (she/her), Student Loan Borrowers, Primary 

to Everyone: 

Agree and the way parent plus loans interact with ICR 

and PSLF 

From Daniel (P) -Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

Ditto to Bethany's point. 

From Suzanne (state regulators) (A) to Everyone: 

+1 Joe - CA has 250k state employees! 

From Daniel (P) -Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

I am also a denied PSLF borrower. 

From Daniel (P) -Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

And would be happy to share my story as well. 

From Jeri (P) (she/her), Student Loan Borrowers, Primary 
130

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

to Everyone: 

for consideration: REVISED PROPOSAL: (i) A 

borrower shall provide information about the 

borrower’s employment and employer on a form approved 

by the Secretary. However, such form is not required 

if the Secretary has sufficient information in the 

Secretary’s possession to determine the borrower’s 

employment and employer. 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 on retroactivity 

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Institutions (she/her) to 

Everyone: 

+1000 

From Will (A) FFEL Agencies to Everyone: 

MIsty - can you add your thoughts to the chat? 

From Heather - PSLF Advisor to Everyone: 
131

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

"is employed in a public service job at the time of 

such forgiveness" 

From Heather - PSLF Advisor to Everyone: 

Perhaps the date of application can be considered to 

be the date of forgiveness, even if processing the 

application takes time. My view is that the statute 

supports such an interpretation. 

From Persis (P) Legal Aid (she/her), NCLC to Everyone: 

Thank you for that clarification! 

From Suzanne (state regulators) (A) to Everyone: 

time of application is a reasonable result - thanks 

for clarifying brian! 

From Misty (P) Priv & Non-Profit to Everyone: 

Has this redlined version been sent out to the group? 

I don't see it but may have missed it. 

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Institutions (she/her) to 
132

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

Everyone: 

We got it in an email Misty. 

From Jennifer - ED negotiator to Everyone: 

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking

/2021/pslfproposedregtextappprocess.pdf 

From Kayla, FMCS Facilitator to Everyone: 

This language was emailed out by FMCS on October 1. 

From Kayla, FMCS Facilitator to Everyone: 

If I need to resend to anyone, please let me know. 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

Would like this to include forbearance/deferment 

between payment plans. 

From Daniel (P) -Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

Add as a deferment or forbearance option the time 
133

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

between when the application is filed and then a 

decision is made. During this time, the borrower 

should not be expected to make payment especially if 

the time is longer than 30 days. Those period should 

count and payment should not expected while a 

decision is being made. 

From Misty (P) Priv & Non-Profit to Everyone: 

Got it thank you! 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

Would like the cancer treatment deferment to be 

broadened to include serious medical treatment. Could 

borrow FLMA language and think it would be easy for 

ED to verify 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 on Daniel's addition as well 

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Institutions (she/her) to 

Everyone: 
134

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

Agree with Daniel and Bethany. 

From Heather - PSLF Advisor to Everyone: 

FMLA leave is counted as full-time employment 

already, but not yet as "qualifying payments" unless 

payments are in fact made 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

thanks, Heather! 

From Jeri (P) (she/her), Student Loan Borrowers, Primary 

to Everyone: 

may be a way to help caregivers as well 

From Persis (P) Legal Aid (she/her), NCLC to Everyone: 

Would want to see time counted when borrowers were 

steered into forbearances or deferments, as well as 

the time between annual recertification, switching 

repayment plans, as well as steered into other 

repayment plans. 
135

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

From Joe (P); State AGs to Everyone: 

Agree with Persis RE finding a way to count payments 

for borrowers inappropriately placed in forbearance 

From Daniel (P) -Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

PLUS Loan -- is the department removing the exclusion 

of PLUS loans from loan forgiveness? It appears so. 

From Heather - PSLF Advisor to Everyone: 

Direct PLUS Loans are specifically included as 

eligible loans in the authorizing legislation. 

From Heather - PSLF Advisor to Everyone: 

Parent PLUS loans are not eligible for IDR plans 

unless consolidated, and then only ICR. 

From Daniel (P) -Fin Aid Admin (he/him) to Everyone: 

Correct, so Heather under this proposal any repayment 

plan would qualify? 
136

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/6/2021

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

Yes, on page 8 

From Rachelle Feldman to Everyone: 

Good point Jeri, will be very important it comes from 

ED. 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

Yes to automation!! 

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Institutions (she/her) to 

Everyone: 

Agree with Bethany.