1

Subject: RE: comprehensive red Line changes to the draft proposed rule

From: Chip Cameron [mailto:fxcameo@ ] 

Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 4:02 PM 

To: Kolotos, John; Rory O'sullivan; Angela Peoples; Eileen Connor; Whitney Barkley; Margaret Reiter; Tom Tarantino; 

Kevin Jensen; Mohr, Rhonda (rmohr@ ); Warner, Jack; tdalton@ ; Sandra Kinney; Jenny Rickard; 

Justice, Della (KYOAG); Libby DeBlasio; Ted Daywalt; Tom Kriger; Helga Greenfield; rhiggs@ ; Richard Heath; 

Glen Gabert; Nassirian, Barmak; Barbara Hoblitzell; Brian Jones; Marc Jerome; JBerkowitz@ ; Belle 

Wheelan Private; nharvison@

Cc: Raymond Testa; Mahaffie, Lynn; Wilson, Amy; charlie pou 

Subject: comprehensive red Line changes to the draft proposed rule 

All ‐ this is a proposal from Ray Testa and is a comprehensive red line version of the draft rule text.

Chip

Negotiators,

  

Attached is a comprehensive red line version of the proposed regulation. This proposal was constructed in consultation

with a team of advisors from  the American Association of Cosmetology Schools, representing more than 1100 campuses

throughout the United States. Rather than submitting a number of isolated issues with no consideration of their mutual

impact, we have attempted to identify specific sections within the entire proposed regulation with concerns and

recommendations that, in our opinion are absolutely essential if the regulation is to approach any degree of fairness.

Much of it actually relies somewhat on the rationale that was offered  by the Department in the publication of the initial

rule while considering the court’s decision which struck down the rule. We believe the rule as proposed is seriously

flawed and abandons  many arguments and rationale the Department used to defend the original rule, while changing

most of the metrics solely for the purpose of rushing to publish and making the rule more difficult.

  

As per the Department’s request, we have offered very specific regulatory language that fits within the framework of

the proposed rule. The changes we recommend are designed to minimize some of the unintended consequences of

establishing metrics that are outside the control of the institution and serve only to create obstacles to choice and

access to education. As currently proposed the rule  establishes bright line benchmarks that will be easily met by

programs that serve higher income independent students and dependent students from all income levels, while setting

the bar disproportionately high for institutions and programs that serve lower income independent students and high

percentages of female and  students with dependent children.

  

We are still working on an additional component that would address the most glaring flaw in the negotiations that have

transpired thus far; i.e. the application of a reasonable sliding scale that would adjust metrics based on student

population characteristics. While the administration along with a majority of FA experts have  frequently cited the need

for such an approach the rule as proposed completely ignores the indisputable variance that accompanies  debt levels

and actual behavior of students after graduation based overwhelmingly on socioeconomic factors. We expect to have a

proposal designed to take this principle into account and to further mitigate unintended consequences.

  

The attached document  has been shared with all the negotiators from the private sector and is being submitted without

objection by any of my colleagues. However, because of the compressed nature of the time to submit, the fact  that

other proposals are forthcoming and that other negotiators from the sector have valuable input to share, we are

prepared to make necessary changes that may come to light between now and our next session. Thank you for your

consideration.

  
2

  

Regards,

Ray Testa