Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and Institutional Quality - 2/5/24

1

 

 

 

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING PROGRAM INTEGRITY 

AND INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY

SESSION 2, DAY 1, AFTERNOON

FEBRUARY 5, 2024

On the 5th day of February, 2024, the

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

to 4:00 p.m.
2

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. ROBERTS: Good afternoon, 

everyone. My name is Brady Roberts with the FMCS. I'll be 

facilitating this afternoon. Stop me if you've heard this 

one before, but we have a robust agenda to get to with 

the remainder of the afternoon. We will break promptly at 

3:30 for 30 minutes of public comment. So, in the next 

2.5 hours, we are really going to endeavor and push all 

of the committee to get through the remainder of the cash 

management section. So, forgive me in advance if I ask 

folks to post things in chat or not duplicate comments 

maybe previously articulated, because we do have a fair 

bit of the documents still to get through. So, with that, 

I'll turn it right back over to the Department. Greg, are 

we at Direct Payments? That's what I had written down.

MR. MARTIN: No, we are at the bottom 

of page three, and we're dealing with, (c)(2), one or 

more payment period- the using current-year funds to pay 

for prior year charges.

MR. ROBERTS: Gotcha. Okay.

MR. MARTIN: Bottom of page three of 

the current issue paper. That's where everybody ought to 

be. And I'll give our people a chance to pull that up on 

the screen. Vanessa is there. Excellent. Yeah. So, I'll 

start there then, Brady, if it's okay with you. So, this 
3

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

was one we proposed before. We don't have anything new

here except for, if you will turn it over to page four, 

you'll see that we have tuition and fees institutionally 

provided. We changed room and board again to food and 

housing, conforming change with FAFSA simplification. And 

that's the only thing we did here. We- I know that in the 

previous session, we- there was some discussion about 

what this dollar figure ought to be. You'll recall that 

the- going from $200 to $300 was a recognition of the 

inflation that's occurred since we put this reg on the 

books. Again, I'll just reiterate the Department's 

position that this is meant to be for minor, and I stress 

minor prior year charges that, in keeping with the edstatement of ed purpose that it's statutory that thethat Title IV funds are to be used to pay for costs in 

the current year. And there really is no provision in 

statute for prior year charges. I- we do understand that, 

you know, prior year charges can often prevent the 

student from re-enrolling, and we want to facilitate the 

payment of those charges where they are minor. This is as 

far as the Department feels it can go. This figure, this 

$300 figure is not an attempt to- a proposal to increase 

that amount as much as it's simply a recognition of the 

inflation that's occurred over time. So, I will open it 

for discussion, but hopefully we can be brief with this 
4

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

and move on. Thank you. Brady?

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Any comments 

for the Department on section (c)(2)? Greg, I think you 

fished your wish, it was very brief. Do we want to take a 

quick temperature check on where we are? Not seeing any 

comments. It might be somewhat perfunctory, but I do want 

to give folks the opportunity if they have anything for 

the Department or the committee to consider. 

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, a temperature check 

on that would be appropriate.

MR. ROBERTS: Great, great. Alright, 

folks, let me see your thumbs. Again, thumbs up. Love it, 

no changes. Middle thumb, not going to withhold 

consensus. Down, we have serious reservations, and we'll 

yield the floor to you for some additional commentary. I 

think I see everyone thumbs up. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

Great.

MS. JEFFRIES: I think you're right, 

Brady. 

MR. ROBERTS: Cool. Thank you all. 

Moving right along, now I believe we are on 668.164(d) 

Direct Payments, right, Greg? Second time's the charm?

MR. MARTIN: Yes, we are here. That's 

where we are now. And just making- well, while Vanessa 

goes there or Joe, we are talking about direct payments 
5

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

and a little bit of history here. Catching you up. One 

negotiator made recommend- made some recommendations 

about EFT, we're not accepting that regulation because it 

falls outside what we're considering today. Although we 

are not accepting recommendations- that recommendation, 

they called our attention to other options for 

distributing funds. And as you can see, we will look at 

this in a minute. We are removing the provision related 

to holding checks for 21 days and requiring that a check 

is mailed to a student or parent to ensure timely 

issuance to students. So, let's take a look at that one. 

And it's there on the screen for you on 668.164(d). You 

can see that under the definition of issuing a check, 

the- or rather, when the institution is considered to 

have issued a check, the institution issues a check on 

the date that it mails the check to the student or

parent, period. We have eliminated the option of 

notifying the student or parent. The check is available 

for immediate pick-up at the specific- specified 

location. And that provision is current- is currently in 

the regs. Allows that the institution may hold the funds 

for no longer than 21 days after the date it notifies the 

student or parent. If the student or parent does not pick 

up the check, the institution must immediately mail the 

check to the student or parent, pay the student or parent 
6

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

directly by other means, or return the funds to the 

program. Our reasoning for eliminating that provision is 

that- a couple of things. Number one, we feel it's 

antiquated. Secondly, it's been used by certain, should I 

say providers of services under tier one to [inaudible] 

to maybe encourage. Remember that students don't have to 

make a choice about how they're going to receive their 

credit balance payments. If you're in a tier one 

arrangement, generally students might have the option of 

taking the- what the provider is offering. Having that 

credit balance put on, for instance, a card. However, 

students don't have to do that. They always have the 

option of simply receiving their credit balance. Having 

it EFT'd to their account or having it mailed to them in 

the form of a check. There is no requirement that the 

student make it that- actively make a choice about that. 

Absent any student choice, the money is to be given to 

the student. What we have seen happening is where 

students have not made that determination and in thewith the provider not wanting to have to face a situation 

where they ever have to mail a check, what they'll do is 

use this 21-day rule and notify students that it's 

available for pickup. But instituting the 21 days and in 

doing so, sort of, I would say circumventing the 

requirement that, well, right now you do have the 21 
7

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

days, but the basic requirement that credit balances be 

returned to a student or parent within 14 days. So, we 

believe that eliminating this closes that loophole and 

makes certain that students will get their credit balance 

checks. While we do understand that providers and maybe 

schools would prefer not to have to ever use a check to 

provide a credit balance to a student, that it's easier 

to do an EFT, it's easier if the student opts for 

whatever is being provided by the tier one provider, that 

the students have that option and the students are not 

required to make a decision. And absent such a decision, 

the credit balance must be sent to the student. So, there 

might not be a way to completely obviate the checks in 

every case. But we believe that the students getting 

their money in a timely manner is- takes precedence over 

that. So, I'll open the floor for discussion on that, 

elimination of that current provision.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Greg. Any 

questions, comments from the Committee on the deletion in 

Direct Payments? Alrighty then. With that, I guess we'll 

take another temperature check, although it might be 

another brief one like last time. But happy to hear where 

the committee stands on this issue. So, barring any late 

hands, let's see folks' disposition- temperature check on 

668.164(d), deletion in (2). I believe we are at minimum 
8

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

all sideways on this, so no thumbs down. Thank you all. 

And again, feel free to stop me if I missed a thumb. 

Great. Alright, Greg, back to you and your team.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Brady. I want 

to thank everybody for that vote of confidence on that 

rule, that rule change. Let's now move on to a discussion 

of 668.164(e) tier one arrangements. A couple of notes 

here I want to make before we move on to this discussion 

about what we did here and what we have- what you have in 

front of you. The Department received a proposal from 

negotiators that placed limitations on fees and adopted 

some of the language directly. Others in modified form. 

The Department is still evaluating the language from a 

legal perspective and considering scenarios we'd like to 

cover. We are seeking feedback from the negotiators who 

submitted this proposal to see what is to be 

accomplished, as well as feedback on the proposal from 

other negotiators. Specifically, we- we'd like to 

understand all of the circumstances the negotiators hope 

to cover under the addition of language, stating that the 

financial institution does not discriminate between HEAfor HEA program funds in regard to tier one and tier two 

arrangements. So, you will see in this paper that we have 

adopted the language here, but we still have some 

concerns, not concerns, but some areas of where we're not 
9

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

100% clear what was intended by those who offered this. 

Let's talk a little bit about this before we get into it. 

You're all aware that originally the Department hadn't 

proposed anything with respect to tier one, tier two, 

when we had our first session, there was nothing there. 

There were some concerns on the part of negotiators about 

addressing the issue of junk fees that are charged to 

students on students' accounts and what we might do to 

reign some of that in. We had said initially that we 

weren't opening up tier one, tier two generally. And that 

is the case. We're not doing a whole- a wholesale 

revision of tier one, tier two. However, we see what is 

here as an extension in some respects of the discussion 

we have about credit balances, which we'll be dealing 

with in a little bit, in which we did deal with and 

proposed in the first session. So, this really is a 

credit balance issue because these fees do have- do stem 

from the fact that students have credit balances which 

are being placed in these accounts. And we also see thewhat was proposed here as basic protections to students 

against the charging of these junk fees. So, with that, 

I'm going to go into what we're- what we did here. You 

can see that 164 is up, and we'll look at what was right 

here on the screen, what was proposed to as addition as 

additionally in tier one and- so we have that the 
10

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

institution of third party servicer or third party 

servicer associates- third party servicer's associated 

financial institution does not discriminate between Title 

IV HEA program funds and other funds when assessing any 

fees, charges, or other costs associated with the 

financial account. Then in (e), no fee is charged to the 

student for any attempted transaction or withdrawal where 

the institution, third-party or third-party servicer's 

associated financial institution rejects or denies such a 

transaction due to insufficient funds in the financial 

account. And finally, in (f), no sunset fee is charged to 

the student at any point in the life cycle of a financial 

account or access drive, including, for example, any fee 

automatically imposed when a student graduates, 

separates, or reaches a specified age. And then if we go 

down to below here in romanette (9)(c), we have, in 

addition, the Secretary shall presume that the terms of 

accounts are not inconsistent with the best financial 

interests of the students opening them if fees other than 

those prohibited in paragraphs (e)(2) romanette (5)(e)(f) 

are imposed under the T1 arrangement are substantially 

similar to the fees permitted under the Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau's model, Safe Student 

Account. So, I'll stop there under these tier one changes 

and we'll open the floor for discussion at this point.
11

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

MR. ROBERTS: Sorry I missed my unmute 

button. Any questions, comments from the Department, 

particularly the negotiators that did submit that 

proposed change? But obviously anyone is welcome.

MR. MARTIN: Before we do that, Brady, 

I just want to- I want to add one thing. We would 

specifically like those individuals who propose this to 

address the issue of (d), the institution, third party 

servicer or third-party services associated financial 

institution does not discriminate between Title IV HEA 

program funds and other funds. So specifically, what is 

meant by not discriminating, we'd like to have that 

addressed if they would be so kind.

MR. ROBERTS: Yeah. Barmak, was it you 

that said- I believe it was you that submitted this 

language.

MR. NASSIRIAN: I'm going to implicate 

my colleague Carolyn Fast, who joined me in submitting 

that proposal. And as Greg mentioned, the goal here is to 

stop the proliferation of junk fees that impose 

significant costs on Title IV recipients who do have 

overages in their accounts, where they have credit 

balances that they should be able to access without 

unreasonable fees. This issue of nondiscrimination is 

intended to protect Title IV recipients by requiring that 
12

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

they not be treated any differently than people who 

deposit their own money or have access to their own 

accounts without Title IV. It's an added layer of 

protection to make sure there's no discriminatory 

treatment of students receiving aid. I don't know if that 

helps, but that was the purpose. I think it's fairly 

self-explanatory in terms of what we're attempting to do.

MR. ROBERTS: Denise, did you want toMS. MORELLI: The other question, 

Barmak, I think, and Carolyn I think we had was do you 

think that sunset fees is self-explanatory or- I mean, 

you do a little bit later or do you think for, you know, 

compliance purposes it needs to be further defined?

MR. NASSIRIAN: I mean, I- between the 

two of us, Carolyn is the attorney. But to me it's a 

fairly self-explanatory notion. It's when there is a 

credit balance, and the student simply decides to close 

the account or withdraw all of the available funds that 

the institution can- that the third-party entity may 

impose really burdensome and unnecessary fees on them 

just for the act of taking the money out. 

MS. MORELLI: Okay, I just wanted to 

make sure that we weren't missing anything there. Thank 

you.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you both. We'll go 
13

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

to DC, and then Carolyn, we'll turn to you.

DR. PRINCE: Sure. Barmak, would youis there another terminology? Because when I asked my 

colleagues in my sector, we- they don't use sunset fee 

and to explain it to them based on this was confusing. 

So, I wouldn't say it's an accepted higher education 

terminology and what that means, particularly in my 

space. And so, I would suggest or at least ask that we 

come up with either some synonyms or we have a definition 

page of or examples of what we mean by this and 

practicality, but it is not a generally accepted term to 

call it sunset. Because we don't necessarily know what 

that means. So, I just wanted to give that back.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. And then 

Carolyn.

MS. FAST: Thanks. Yeah. Just adding 

to what Barmak said in terms of just the point about 

provision (d) about discriminating between Title IV and 

non-Title IV. One way that discrimination could come into 

play that has occurred is that some financial 

institutions may charge fees based on keeping a minimum 

balance, but they might not count Title IV as qualifying 

for the minimum balance. So that just means that students 

who are getting Title IV only in those tier one accounts 

would be charged fees that other students wouldn't, and 
14

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

that those fees would come directly out of Title IV 

money. And that is sort of the practical implication of 

that- the discrimination issue. And in terms of sunset 

fees, I don't think that we would have any objection to 

not using the term sunset fee and instead using sort of 

just the rest of the sentence where they said, for 

example, fees automatically imposed when a student 

graduates separates or reaches a certain- a specificspecified age. I mean, I don't think we're insistent on 

the use of the word sunset fee. And that's- the rest of 

it sort of sets out what is meant by that term. And that 

would be a fine way to handle that.

MR. ROBERTS: Thanks, Carolyn. Any 

other questions or comments from the Committee on the 

modifications to tier one arrangement? Yeah, Dom, go 

ahead.

MR. CHASE: Thank you. Just wanted to 

see clarity on the consideration of the EFT language and 

what sort of excluded that not being considered? Just for 

my understanding, please.

MR. MARTIN: Oh, yeah. Specifically, 

we, as you probably are aware and- let's see if I can- I 

can never find anything in regulations when I want to. 

But in 668 current, 668.161, we say EFT- in 668.161, it's 

not in front of you, so don't look for it. In 168.161 
15

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

under scope and institutional responsibility of cash 

management, subpart K in (a)(1) romanette 4, I think I 

got that right, EFT, electronic funds transfer means 

transaction initiated electronically instructing the 

crediting or debiting of financial account or 

institutions depository account for purposes of 

transactions initiated by the Secretary. The firm EFT 

includes all transactions covered by 31CFR 208.2(f) for 

purposes of transactions initiated by or on behalf of 

institutions. The term EFT includes from among the 

transactions covered by 31CFR 208.2 only automated 

clearinghouse transactions. We're- we are not amenable to 

changing that rule to allow for peer-to-peer

transactions. Our reasons for that are that- have to do 

with the inherent security of ACH transactions and the 

fact that we do not believe that peer to peer payment 

systems provide that level of security, and the 

Department is responsible for this funding. And it's 

also- schools also serve as a fiduciary in that regard. 

And that if there were ever to be any breaches or 

problems involving this, the same level of security where 

the funds are protected simply is not there. Although we 

are aware that peer to peer can be faster, we believe 

that the current EFT ACH transactions are fast enough to 

cover any situation. We do acknowledge that we allowed 
16

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

peer to peer during the Covid flexibilities that we had. 

But those sunset, along with many other flexibilities we 

offered during that period of time. So that's our 

reasoning behind not wanting to move away from where we 

currently are.

MR. CHASE: Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: And I do just want to 

note Jillian's comment in chat potentially satisfy- you 

know, resolving the confusion over sunset fees for 

swapping in the phrase closure fees.

MS. KLEIN: Yeah, I don't know if 

that's even appropriate. I would just say my other 

comment is like, if you can tie it to CFPB defined 

something probably helps everybody understand what's 

meant by it.

MR. MARTIN: Thanks, Jillian. We'll 

look at the language. We have that and we'll look and see 

what we can do with that language. If anybody has any 

other comments they want to offer about that, please do. 

Thanks for all the consideration.

MR. ROBERTS: Anything else for 

consideration? Okay, notwithstanding the clarification on 

that, Greg, do you want to take a temperature check on 

the changes made to the tier one arrangement section? 

MR. MARTIN: I would.
17

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. If folks are 

ready, feel free to indicate where you are on the changes 

to 668.164(e) with your thumbs. Again, I don't see any 

thumbs down. Please feel free to correct me if I missed 

anyone. It's later in the day, so people's fingers are 

kind of getting further and further down the screen, but 

I see a little bit of thumb. I think that indicates a 

thumbs up at least. Once you see the rest, it becomes a 

question. Alright, Greg, I'll turn it back over to your 

team for the next piece on tier two arrangement.

MR. MARTIN: Thanks, Brady. So, we're 

moving to a discussion of tier two arrangements, and 

that's coming up on the screen as we speak. This is 

starting at the top of page six for those of you 

following in the issue papers. And take a look at the 

language here. What we've done for tier two is in (c), 

the Secretary shall presume that the terms of accounts 

are not inconsistent with the best financial interests of 

students opening them if the fees imposed under the tier 

two arrangement are substantially similar to the fees 

permitted under the Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau's Model Safe Student Account. And ensure that the 

institution third party servicer or third-party servicers 

associated financial institution does not discriminate 

between Title IV HEA program funds and other funds when 
18

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

assessing any fees, charges, or other costs associated 

with the financial account. And we'll open that up for 

discussion if anybody has anything to add about thewhat's under tier two.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Greg. Any 

comments on this section? So that's pages five and six, 

668.164(f). Oh, I see you raising your physical hand, 

Erika. Go ahead.

MS. LINDEN: Sorry, had to unmute. Is 

there a reason that that (c) is different than the (c) on 

the previous section?

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, we had legal 

considerations as to how far we could go here. I'll turn 

it over to my colleague, Denise Morelli. Maybe she wants 

to make a couple of comments about that.

MS. MORELLI: I think there's a 

concern from the Department about the authority on 

outright prohibition of fees for a tier two arrangement, 

because there's no direct funds, Title IV funds being 

processed through the account.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Denise.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you both. Anything 

else? Questions, concerns, considerations? Well, alright, 

Greg, anything else from the Department or are we okay to 

take a temperature check on this?
19

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

MR. MARTIN: Okay to take a 

temperature check.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. If you all 

wouldn't mind indicating where you were on these changes 

to tier two arrangement with your thumbs. Again, I don't 

see any thumbs down. Thank you all. I'll turn it over to 

Greg and his team for the next section, which I'm 

scrolling down, I think it's the edition in the Title IV 

HEA credit balances, right?

MR. MARTIN: That's correct, Brady. 

We're at 161.164(h)(1), Title IV credit balances. And 

we're not- we didn't make any changes here over what we 

had before. We discussed this language during the first 

session. And we discussed the Department's reasons for 

making this change to the definition of a credit balance. 

It essentially being a protection for students and 

insurance against their money- their money is being

retained based on a technicality which existed in the 

current rules. So, we think this addresses that problem 

and provides an important protection for students. As I 

said, we already went over the reasons for it, but I'll 

open the floor again for any comments people may have 

before we take a temperature check.

MR. ROBERTS: Sure. Zack, we'll turn 

it over to you first.
20

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

MR. GOODWIN: You can make fun of me 

afterwards. Would it be- would the Department be open to 

using the term in combination with instead of and between 

Title IV funds and other types of funds?

MR. MARTIN: Okay, so if I'm following 

you, Zack, Title IV credit balance occurs when the amount 

of Title IV program funds, you would like to change and 

in combination with other Federal non-Title IV funds? Is 

there a specific reason why you don't like the current 

usage?

MR. GOODWIN: I guess I feel like 

someone could try to work around this. Ideally the Title 

IV funds and other funds coexist. And someone- I would 

say, I don't want to go too deeply into it if that's 

okay, because it was something that someone identified to 

me that they were aware of as a school practice and I 

certainly wouldn't call them out, of dispersing Title IV 

funds and not dispersing other funds, and saying that 

therefore this wouldn't have existed. It wouldn't be a 

credit balance.

MR. MARTIN: I- as far as changing the 

changing the language from and to in combination with, I 

mean, I don't- off the top of my head see a problem with 

that. I think we'd have to take that back and let our 

counsel and let some FSA people take a look at it. But I 
21

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

don't- I mean, that- I mean, I would say Zack that the 

intent of our rule as proposed is exactly what you say, 

to avoid- to prohibit that. I don't- I'm not exactly 

certain what practice you're discussing there, butMR. GOODWIN: Sorry, I shouldn't have 

said practice. I mean, suggested practice, something that 

someone said to me. 

MR. MARTIN: I mean, certainly, I 

would say the Department, we don't have any authority 

over how schools disperse other funds that aren't our 

funds. So, while I think it's- would be very unfortunate 

if schools are somehow not disbursing other funds in 

order not to make a credit balance occur, I would 

certainly say I call out that practice as definitely 

unacceptable, you know, and we would do whatever we could 

within the confines of our regulations to prohibit that. 

I think we're- I think what I'll say, Zack, is we're 

generally amenable to that change. We'll look at it. I 

just want to make- I just don't want to make a commitment 

on the part of the Department right now that we'll 

definitely do it, that's all. But I don't see a problem 

with it. I don't think my colleagues, Denise or Dave- but 

Denise has her hand up, so maybe she wants to make a 

point here.

MR. GOODWIN: Thank you, Greg. And 
22

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

it's not- [inaudible] really strongly about. It- just 

like anything we can do [inaudible].

MS. MORELLI: I think that that 

captures what we're trying to do here. But just the 

attorney in me wants to make sure we think through all 

the implications of the language. And actually, it may be 

a more accurate- but we want to make sure we're thinking 

through everything.

MR. GOODWIN: Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: And Zack, just to 

capture that, do you just want to briefly post that in 

chat just so the language that you're getting at is 

captured sort of in context to the discussion?

MR. GOODWIN: Will do. Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Anything else 

on this section? No modifications from week one to 

consider, but we want to leave the floor open if folks 

want to talk more through it. Okay. Greg, do you want to 

take a- just another temperature check on this?

MR. MARTIN: I would.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I hope we're 

not tired of them yet, because we have plenty more 

coming. But if folks want to indicate where they are on 

this section, again with no new modifications, just to 

make sure we're tracking where the conversation is. I 
23

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

cruelly made Zack type on his computer while also asking 

him to indicate where he was by a temperature- it's okay. 

But, yeah, I was going to say, okay, I got you. I don't 

see any thumbs down. So, thank you all for the 

conversation there. And thank you, Zack, for your 

suggestion. Alright, Greg, do you want to move on to late 

disbursements?

MR. MARTIN: Yes. Here again, we're 

not proposing anything different. This is pretty much 

what we had- exactly what we had last time. We explained 

the reasons for that. This- we are eliminating, in (4) 

romanette 2, where we currently have the rule, an 

institution may not make a late second or subsequent 

disbursement of a loan under the Direct Loan program 

unless the student successfully completes thesuccessfully completed the period of enrollment for which 

he- for which the loan was intended. We see no reason to 

make a distinction between first and second 

disbursements. There really is nothing sacrosanct about a 

second or subsequent disbursement as opposed to a first 

disbursement. So, we propose to align the rules for each. 

We're not even 100% sure where that came from. The deep, 

dark days of the DSL program, I think a long time ago, 

there were some considerations, but we do not believe 

those exist today. We didn't have any pushback on that in 
24

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

the first round. I don't have anything else to say about 

it. I will open it up for discussion, however, until weprior to taking a temperature check. 

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, thank you, 

Greg. Thank you, Vanessa. We can probably bring down the 

text. Any comments, questions, thoughts for the 

Department or the Committee? Seeing no hands. Again, 

before we move on, we do want to take a quick temperature 

check on this just to make sure we're tracking where the 

committee is on this issue paper. So, if folks wouldn't 

mind indicating where they are with a show of thumbs. DC, 

sorry- I appreciate you changing your background. Thank 

you. Alright. Thank you, all. I appreciate it. I didn't 

see any thumbs down there. Greg, I'll turn it back over 

to you.

MR. MARTIN: Okay. We can move on tohere we have, in 164(l) and (m), Returning Funds and 

Provision for books and supplies. And we note here again 

that we proposed to move this text from 164 over- (l) 

over to 167(a) and we'll see that subsequently, so that 

is eliminated. And then, here the provisions for books 

and supplies simply align with what we established 

earlier. An institution must provide a way for student 

who is eligible for Title IV funds to purchase- to obtain 

or purchase by the seventh day of the payment period the 
25

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

books and supplies applicable to the payment period. If 

ten days prior to the beginning of the payment period, 

the institution could disburse the Title IV HEA program 

funds for which the student is eligible and presuming the 

funds were just- were disbursed, the student would have a 

credit balance. That's the current language. So, nothing 

new there. This section just simply takes out the parts 

of the regulation that were pertinent to the provisions 

for inclusion of books and supplies as tuition and fees, 

which we propose to remove. So that's what this section 

does. So, it does kind of work in conjunction with the 

other section, I should point that out. But that's all I 

have to say about this. I don't think- I'll certainly 

open the floor for comment, but I don't want to reopen 

the issue of books and supplies. Generally. I think we 

know where everybody stands on that, and we did take the 

consensus check on that. So, I'm not really speaking out 

of turn- out of bounds here. Not consensus check, 

temperature check we took on that before. So, if 

negotiators want to offer their check in sort of 

consideration of how they felt about books and supplies 

generally, I fully understand that. So, I mean, it's hard 

to look at this completely separately from the issue of 

books and supplies. But it does- this does conform with 

that. So, I just want to point that out as you think 
26

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

about your- where you are with this. But I will open the 

floor if anybody has any comments before we move on.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Greg. Any 

comments or questions for the Committee or the Department 

on the move here? It was a heavy lunch today. Yeah, 

Barmak, go ahead.

MR. NASSIRIAN: The only question I 

have is it may just be a drafting issue, but the amount 

at the very end of (l)(2), the amount as determined by 

the institution. Is that the amount the institution 

itself is selling the stuff for or is it MSRP? What is 

it?

MR. MARTIN: So, you're looking at 

where we have provisions for books and supplies. The 

amount the institution provides to students. The amount 

the institution provides to the student to obtain or 

purchase books and supplies is the lesser of the presumed 

credit balance under this paragraph, or the amount needed

by the student, as determined by- it's the amount 

determined- it's the amount needed to purchase the books 

and supplies as determined by the institution as to what 

that would be. So, it's the lesser of those two. Those 

twoMR. NASSIRIAN: No, I know that. But 

I'm saying what is the amount- is the amount determined 
27

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

by the institution, more specifically, the amount that 

the institution sells the stuff at the bookstore? Is it 

the retail price of this stuff? What is that amount? I 

mean, is the institution at liberty to just pick any 

number as long as it's lesser than?

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, I'm not sure we've 

ever looked at it in that level of granularity, Barmak, 

but obviously has to be a reasonable- obviously has to be 

a reasonable determination that the student can purchasecan obtain the books through that- through whatever that 

amount is. I mean, minimally, they're going to have toyou know, so it is still the- well, the lesser of the 

credit balance or the amount determined. So, it is- I see 

what you're saying there. Would it be possible for the 

school to make an absurd determination as to- or not a 

reasonable determination as to what amount is needed to 

purchase books and supplies. And that would be a 

compliance issue, I suppose, if it came up. I've never 

really, to be fair, to be honest with you, considered it, 

you know, to that- at that level. I would ask David orDavid might have a comment about that. Turns out he does. 

So, I'll let Dave give his opinion on that.

MR. MUSSER: Yeah, it's a good 

question. I think in practice this nearly always, at 

least in all the instances that I've looked at as a 
28

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

program reviewer and in questions, the institution tends 

to determine this, using the- using a specific amount 

that the student needs to buy the books, the price of the 

books. I've never seen another method used. That's not to 

say that it might not be. But generally, that's- the 

school has to- the school will default to the amount of 

the presumed credit balance generally. And in the rare 

case that they go lower than that to fulfill this 

requirement, they will point to the specific charges that 

the student has that's less than the credit balance. 

There's not- at least in my experience, I haven't seen 

any other method, but like I said, it's not that there 

couldn't be.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. If there's no 

more follow-up- no additional follow up on that- Jason, I 

think your hand is next.

MR. LORGAN: Thank you. So, I just 

wanted to ask a question if the regulation is still 

needed, because under (m), students currently have the 

option to opt out of the method the school provides. 

Thank you.

MR. MARTIN: So, you're saying- you're 

suggesting what is the- that this is not needed? You're 

suggesting, why is it still needed?

MR. LORGAN: Yeah.
29

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

MR. MARTIN: Well, the reason for this 

is- and I guess this is- and again, this is not new, but 

this is if- again, going back to the root here. Must 

provide a way for students who are eligible for Title IV 

HEA funds to obtain or purchase by the seventh day of a 

payment period. Books and supplies. If the following 

exists, so that- they could disperse Title IV program 

funds to student if the student was eligible and 

presuming the funds were dispersed, the student would 

have had a credit balance under this paragraph. So, it's 

a way of- I would- I think it is absolutely necessary 

because it obligates schools to- if there's a credit 

balance that's going to be- that's in play, they- because 

the thing here is here they could disperse the funds so 

they're able to disperse the funds for the student. And 

if the funds were dispersed, the student would have a 

credit balance. It's basically saying the school has to 

provide a way for the student to obtain those books and 

supplies quickly up front for, you know, not having to 

wait until perhaps the credit balance is actually 

dispersed. That's what the meaning of this is. So yeah, I 

think it sits outside of anything else we've done as a 

basic protection for students to get them their books and 

supplies earlier, get the means to them to purchase- you 

know, to secure those books and supplies.
30

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

MR. ROBERTS: Jillian.

MS. KLEIN: Yeah, I'm sorry, this is 

probably the dumbest question I've asked thus far, though 

probably will not be my dumbest one during these 

conversations. But it- is the idea that this then- if 

students choose to opt in under the conversation, we're 

not talking about that we already had, that they have 

fulfilled- the institutions- if an institution provides a 

student the option to opt in, have we met this 

requirement? And if the answer is- even if the student 

decides not to, and if the answer is yes, can we- I 

understand that you're proposing to cut three, but I feel 

like maybe you need to say something that if the 

institution provides the student the opportunity to opt 

in, that they have already met this requirement. I'm 

sorry if that's a dumb question.

MR. MARTIN: No not at all. I don't 

consider any questions to be dumb. I once had a colleague 

of mine who, on April Fool's Day, put a note on my desk 

that I should call Mr. Fox at the zoo about a financial 

aid question. And I did call the Philadelphia Zoo, and I 

went through the voicemail thing looking for- typing in 

F-o-x. F-o-x. No person by that- by that name exists 

here. Well, ten colleagues laughed their heads off at me, 

watching me do it. So, I'm never going to suggest that 
31

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

anything anybody does is dumb, because I think that takes 

the game. But to answer your question, the- no, it sits 

out- you wouldn't- in doing that, and complying with that 

opt-in, you wouldn't meet this requirement. And what this 

has to do with is simply just because the student opts 

in, you're still- you still have to make available the 

means for the student to obtain those supplies, right? 

Those books and supplies. So, what this is, is that

you're saying here if there's a credit balance, so we're 

not- you know, if there's going to be a credit balanceso, if there is going to be- the students going to have 

the funds necessary to pay for those books and supplies, 

that you make the- you make provision a way for a 

student. It says provide a way for the student who is 

eligible in order to receive those. And it says here, if 

ten days before the beginning of the payment period, 

because the- you're allowed to as an institution, you're 

permitted to remember dispersed funds up to ten days 

prior to the beginning of the payment period, right? 

That's the maximum timeframe that we have in cash 

management. And that would presumably get funds to the 

student as early as possible. Many schools don't choose 

to do that for many good reasons. It could be that you 

don't want to disperse funds until you absolutely know a 

student has begun attendance, right? So, you don't have 
32

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

to return funds. There could be a number of reasons why 

you don't want to disperse ten days prior. The school 

does take on potential liability if you disperse ten days 

earlier and the student never shows up. So, some schools 

don't do that. But if ten days prior these situations 

existed, you could disperse, and there was- there were 

Title IV funds available or there will be you've got to 

make provision for the students to purchase. So, it goes 

beyond just saying, well, the students opting into 

getting the books and supplies from the school. That may 

be- that's all well and good, but you still have to make 

it possible for the student to do that, even if the 

credit balance hasn't been dispersed.

MS. KLEIN: But isn't that a way to do 

it? I guess I'm confused. I mean.

MR. MUSSER: Yes, I think I understand 

your question, Jillian. If a school offers a method of 

providing the books and supplies directly to the students 

from the school, that method has to meet these 

requirements. Because you have to ensure that method 

would ultimately get these things to the students in time 

for all the students for whom this- to whom this applies. 

If it didn't meet these requirements, so if you set up a 

method that didn't provide the materials to the students 

on the 20th day, then you couldn't- there would be no way 
33

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

for you to meet this requirement for all the students 

that qualified. So, I think that answers at least the 

first part of your question. But I wanted to make sure I 

understood the second part of your question about the 

removal of three because I don't think I quite caught 

that. 

MS. KLEIN: Yeah, I don't think it's 

this exact 3 language, but I think the old 3 language 

suggests the spirit of what I'm saying, which is I think 

that was an overt way to let institutions know exactly 

what you said, right? Which is if you have a process 

where a student can opt in to getting their books through 

the institution prior to the 10th day, or whatever 

specific timeline that then the institution has met this 

requirement even if the student doesn't choose to opt in 

or choose to opt out or whatever. So, I guess as an 

institution, given the inconsistencies and answers here, 

like I think it would be helpful to institutions if 

that's the case, to just be overt about that in the 

language.

MR. MARTIN: Well, 3 is the- remember, 

3 is the old opt-out provision, soMS. KLEIN: Yeah, I'm saying not the 

exact 3, but the spirit of like if you do- if you- if the 

institution provides an opt-in option for students to get 
34

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

their books that they have met this requirement. 

[Inaudible]

MR. MARTIN: Well, it would have to- I 

would word it as if they provide the opt-in option, they 

would have to meet- it goes without saying they would 

have to meet this requirement. Otherwise, they couldn't 

do it. And you couldn't do like what Dave said, you 

couldn't say, okay, student opts in, right, is giving you 

the- giving you the authorization and has opted in to 

purchasing the books and supplies from the school. But 

you'll provide that to the student on day 15 or day 20, 

you couldn't do that. You'd have to still abide by this. 

If the student has that credit balance, you have to make 

those books available or make it- you know, you have to 

provide that to the student, right? Even if you hadn't 

actually disbursed yet. Does that make sense? It's- in 

doing the one, it's like- so all you're doing with the 

opt- with the opt-in, you're simply saying, okay, you're 

providing this class. I'll go back to my biology 101 

again. You're providing this bundled homework book, 

papers, everything, and the student is opting in. Right? 

You're going to be able to- the student's purchasing it 

from you. You still have to make that available- all that 

available to the student within these timeframes. The 

student has a credit balance, right? There could have 
35

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

been- that could have been disbursed up to ten days 

before, you have to go ahead and make the means available 

for the student to obtain those materials, which would be 

in the case of where the school provides it, simply 

providing them, giving the student access, right? So,

let's just say on day one, you give the student access to 

all of that by giving them the electronic key, you would 

have met this requirement. I'm not- I'm not getting what 

you're- if you want- if I'm missing somethingMS. KLEIN: Well, I think the fact 

that I got- again, I'm sure I'm out of time. I think the 

fact that I got a different answer to what I thought was 

a dumb question from you and from Dave, at leastMR. MARTIN: No, Dave- I think it's 

the same thing. What Dave is saying. If you're doing 

this, you're automatically needing it. If you're- if the 

student stopped again and you're providing the materials, 

yes, you've met this. Does that help?

MS. KLEIN: Sure.

MR. MARTIN: If you provide them- if 

you actually provide the materials and you- and the 

student's opted in and you provided the materials in this 

timeframe, you automatically meet this.

MS. KLEIN: Yes. But okay, so my 

question was not if an individual student opts in. My 
36

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

question was if you have an institution, have a process 

where a student can choose to opt in, have we met this 

requirement for all students even if [30 seconds] even 

if- really? Even if none of them opt in, is what I'm 

saying. That was my question. And I was saying if the 

case is that you just have to have a process, but 

literally zero of your students, zeroMR. MARTIN: I'll ask Dave to- if you 

had a situation where you could opt- students could opt 

in, but let's say none of them opt in. They all decide 

not to opt in, they want to buy- that means they want to 

buy their books and supplies through another means, you

still have to make that- you still have to make it 

possible forMR. MUSSER: But you would- yeah, the 

answer is yes, I think, Jillian, because all this says 

currently is that you must provide a way. It doesn't say 

anything about whether someone actually uses that method. 

So, if you use the option available and it applies to the 

individuals that are described here, yes, you would meet 

this requirement.

MR. ROBERTS: Happy to let the 

conversation continue, but I do want to give other folks 

who have their hands raised if they want toMS. KLEIN: I scared everybody else 
37

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

away. Everybody took their hand down, so, you're welcome.

MR. ROBERTS: I did notice that, yeah.

MR. GOODWIN: No, I just withdrew the 

question because it was answered.

MR. MARTIN: Okay. Gotcha. Thank you. 

And then there was one other one. Sorry, I didn't write 

down the name, but I did see one other hand. I don't know 

if it was intentional or not.

MR. LORGAN: I'm okay now, Brady, 

thank you. 

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you, all. 

Any other questions about this section without- you know, 

given the guardrails of the- of what we want to do with 

this specific exchange? Alright. Anything else? Oh, yeah, 

Jo, go ahead.

MS. BLONDIN: Yes, before we do an up 

or down or whatever, can we restate exactly what- because 

I'm now a little confused. And so, I just want to make 

sure that we're as clear as possible on what we're 

raising our thumbs for. So could somebody- I mean, I can 

read it, I've read it and I've heard the conversation, 

but I just want to be really clear, if somebody can just 

articulate that for me. Thank you.

MR. MARTIN: Well, what we're doing 

here is- what's been proposed, as you can see here, you 
38

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

can see the strikeout language. So, what we just 

discussed as far as the provision for the student to 

purchase books, and we went all over that in one and two. 

That's not new. Right? That's- that exists. That's 

extant. What we've done here is removed three, which was 

the opt-out policy- the opt-out rules because we no 

longer need- we would no longer need the opt-out rules, 

right? You don't need that.

MS. BLONDIN: In order to be 

consistent with the lastMR. MARTIN: Yes, 3- removal of 3 and 

4 is consistent with the books and supply chain, that's 

correct. 

MS. BLONDIN: Okay.

MR. MARTIN: Sorry, Denise, did you 

have something? 

MR. ROBERTS: Yeah, Denise, did you 

want toMS. MORELLI: No. I think we might not 

need to do a temperature check on this because it's tied 

to the one we already did. So, I- my suggestion is we 

don't need to do that unless there'sMR. MARTIN: It is tied to theMS. MORELLI: Yeah, so we probably can 

skip the temperature check. And when we do it in the next 
39

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

round, we'll make sure we tie the two of them together.

MR. MARTIN: They really are 

completely linked. So, it's just- it just enables the 

other. This just enables the- what we did. So, you're 

probably right, Denise. We probably don't have to take a 

temperature check for this.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm happy to skip it. I 

do just want to pose if there are any concerns or 

questions or additional considerations that you would 

have withheld, obviously, until you, you sort of were 

given an opportunity if you did have serious reservations 

about, again, where this section lies in the reg text, 

feel free to add those right now. Otherwise, Greg, if 

it's okay with you and your team, I'm happy to move to 

the next section.

MR. MARTIN: Okay, great.

MR. ROBERTS: Any- anything to add 

before we move to, I guess it would be student or parent 

authorizations?

MR. MARTIN: Correct.

DR. PRINCE: Yes. Is the question at 

hand that people might have changed their votes knowing 

what they know now compared to a previous vote, and want 

to make that adjustment? Is that question on the table?

MR. MARTIN: No. First of all, let's 
40

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

make it clear again that we didn't vote- we're not voting 

consensus. This is simply just a temperature check to see 

where people are right now, right? 

DR. PRINCE: Well, yeah. 

MR. MARTIN: All Denise was- what 

Denise was saying was that what we're doing in (m) simply 

facilitates what we did back under (c) with respect to 

removing the current option of including books and 

supplies as part of tuition and fees. So, if given those 

rules as proposed, then you need to conform what is in 

(m) to that. So, for instance the opt-out is no longer 

necessary. The opt-out is made redundant, right, by that. 

So that is why that is removed. And three and four both 

are unnecessary given those changes. But what Denise was 

saying is that whether- you know, how you feel about 

what's in (m) is going to be entirely linked to what youwhat your opinion was about the books and supplies 

changes that we already discussed and took a temperature 

check on, so that a temperature check here would bewould not be necessary. It wouldn't be changing anything. 

It's just sort of an extension of what we discussed 

previously. Hope that clarifies it.

DR. PRINCE: Yes. I think the issue 

that I have procedurally since we're on the topic was 

that wasn't discussed or stated earlier. And so, what 
41

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

you're now doing is you're saying, oh, by the way, this 

goes with your earlier vote, but it wasn't clear what 

made the earlier vote, but this was also connected to it. 

And so, what it looks like is you tried to hide something 

additionally, even though there may not have been 

anything under the rug, you tried to hide something. Now 

saying, oh, we don't need to take a vote now, let's make 

an assumption that we thought we were going to after this 

discussion that it was tied to an earlier vote. Well, we 

didn't say that. And that wasn't part of the 

clarification when that was done. But then you open up a 

discussion, a conversation on this topic why- but you 

didn't connect to the earlier one. So, I think now people 

are- and I see some head nods saying, well, you should 

have said that before. And I think that's the procedural 

issue. So, moving forward, if we're going to vote for one 

thing and it's connected to subsequent sections, it'd be 

good to have that already stated out very early on before 

the vote, or not vote, I'm saying vote in the sense of 

temperature check, but it's all a vote in my mind. So, I 

use one word, that that's made clear when that is taking 

place.

MR. ROBERTS: I just- from a process 

perspective, I can just briefly weigh in, Greg. And 

that's a- it's a mea culpa from me. What I will say 
42

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

though, and it's just to clarify what the purpose for all 

the temperature checks is. It's really just an 

opportunity to solicit as explicitly as we can as 

facilitators, any questions or comments or potential 

opposition that negotiators or the committee might have 

moved- looking forward into future weeks where we will 

actually be taking, you know, official consensus checks. 

So, you know, I can just speak from my team. It was never 

an attempt to obfuscate, you know, any part of this 

process. It was more- it was a change in the reg text, 

you know, meaning just like an ordering of where things 

were in this issue paper. But, per Denise's comment, you 

know, I also would agree that I felt the discussion had 

previously been covered, the sort of substantive 

questions and issues negotiators had with this. But your 

point is well taken, DC, and we'll endeavor to do that 

moving forward.

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, I want to assure 

everybody that there's certainly no intent on the part of 

the Department or FMCS to hide anything [inaudible] you 

know, certainly open to discussion of everything and to 

make clear that the only vote that will ever be taken 

here is the vote on the consensus. These are simply 

temperature checks.

MR. ROBERTS: We did struggle with the 
43

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

nomenclature and what to call these kind of unofficial 

like where's everybody at right now? Again, they have no, 

you know, weight in the process. It's just a way to 

elicit more feedback.

MR. MARTIN: And it probably would 

have been a good idea if I had maybe tied the two of 

these together at the time I was- I mean, there's always 

this- there's always a desire to go through things as the 

paper is laid out, because that's the logical way to go 

through it. And then there are times when they're tied 

together. So, whether we should skip ahead and go back is 

always a difficult determination to make. And in this 

case, maybe I should have opted for the- for moving 

forward. So, I apologize if I didn't do that, but there 

was certainly no malicious intent.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, all. And 

again, any final comments or considerations for the 

committee on this section of the issue paper, the reg 

text? Seeing none. Greg, I will turn it over to you.

MR. MARTIN: Thanks, Brady. So, we're 

moving on to 668.165(b). We're now moving into 165, which 

in the regulations and subpart K is Authorizations and 

Notices. So, we're dealing specifically here with student 

or parent authorizations. And we have made a few changes 

here. If you look on page nine where we talk about- well, 
44

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

I'll start here. Under- unless the Secretary provides 

funds to the institution under the reimbursement payment 

method or heightened cash management so as long as the 

institution is on advanced pay. The student- this is an 

authorization to hold on behalf of student or parent, any 

Title IV program funds that would otherwise be directlypaid directly to the student or parent as a credit 

balance. So that's a long existing provision. And then we 

have added they can also with this authorization retain 

unused cash value of meal plan funds. We already did 

discuss that. But this is the actual- actually where the 

authorization would be- where the rules are for how you 

obtain the authorization for that. So that's in (b). And 

you can also see under (c), apply the unused cash value 

meal plan funds for unpaid allowable charges on the 

students account. So, the provisions we previously 

discussed under- in 164, this is where the student would 

authorize the institution to be able to do that. And if 

we look in (2), the changes we've made there in obtaining 

the student's or parent's authorization to perform an 

activity described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 

the institution must clearly describe what the 

authorization allows the institution to do and how it 

will be implemented. Must provide these authorizations 

conspicuously and separately from other documents a 
45

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

student or parent is required to sign. So, this is just 

language that we put in as we were looking at all of this 

to strengthen the transparency of authorizations students 

are signing, one of the- two of the things here. Make 

them clear so the students know exactly what it is 

they're authorizing so that should- that cannot be hidden 

or obfuscated in any way. And to make sure those 

authorizations are conspicuously- are conspicuous and 

separate from other documents so that they're not- we 

have seen instances where in some institutions, obviously 

not the majority at all- the vast majority of 

institutions do this correctly and have the best interest 

of students in mind. But we have seen examples where 

authorizations are buried in other paperwork and students 

just routinely sign away these authorizations without 

really knowing what it is they're doing. And so, you 

know, in other words, like, you know, you can't make- you 

can't bury this authorization in an award letter. So, in 

accepting the award, the student is giving you the 

authorization. That would be an example of the type of 

circumvention that we would be trying to- we've never 

allowed that, quite frankly. We've always- we would have 

always made a compliance finding where that occurred 

[inaudible]. So, with that, I will open the floor for 

discussion. 
46

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, thank you, 

Greg. Jillian, I see your hand, but I'll- I'm going to

jump to Denise first. And, Vanessa, I think we can bring 

down the shared screen. Thank you. Denise, go ahead.

MS. MORELLI: I just wanted to tag on 

to what Greg had said that we've seen- I do a lot of 

compliance work, and we've seen a lot of issues with 

authorizations and students not understanding them, not 

seeing them, they're buried. And so, this was an attempt 

to try to tighten up our authorization provisions to 

assist the students in making informed decisions on this.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Jillian, I 

see your hand up first. Go ahead.

MS. KLEIN: Yeah. Despite my- anyway, 

I'm back. Just to reiterate what I said this morning 

about the cadence of authorizations, this section also is 

not- like I read this section, I know it's silent to it, 

but I read this as, like annual or less often than 

annual. And so, I would just- I mean, be careful what you 

wish for, right? But like, I would just make sure the 

intention is that it's on a payment period basis or per 

term, or more often than once in the career of the 

student that that's clear, probably back what we were 

talking about this morning but certainly citing to this 

section does not make it any clearer in terms of the 
47

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

cadence that you're expecting.

MR. MARTIN: Well, that's a good 

point, Jillian, that the problem here is that you saythe way it's set up, say something for instance in 164 

that this requires a student authorization, but the rules 

turn into the actual authorization itself are then found 

in an entirely other section, which is 165, right? So the 

only one that and I'll ask Dave to comment here. The only 

one that we've got that we have that requires an 

authorization of payment period basis would be the one 

about books and supplies where I explained the reason for 

that. So, we- and that and that is in that section. But 

you know, you make a good point, and we'll go back- I 

think we need to go- we'll go back and reiterate and 

review rather, all the sections where there are, where 

it's possible to get a student authorization and how 

that, you know, how that works as far as how often you 

have to obtain it. Our general authorizations are general 

authorizations are obtained. The only requirement is that 

they be obtained up front. And they in general are good 

for the entirety of a student's matriculation unless a 

student retracts it, which they have the option of doing. 

The only one I can think of where we made a distinction 

with that was the one that had to be done every term. But 

we will go back and look at that.
48

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

MS. KLEIN: Yeah, [inaudible] this 

morning's thing. I mean, and I'm not a lawyer, and so I 

am out of my depth a bit here. But it literally says for 

each payment period the institution discloses, it doesn't 

say that the institution gets an authorization. So that's 

why I'm saying, like it just needs to be clear, because I 

think you can read either way. And so, it needs- I mean, 

if you want an institution to comply, then tell them what 

to do.

MR. MARTIN: No, I agree with you. I 

think that language can be cleaned up a little bit. I 

absolutely do. And we'll go back and take it- that is the 

intent, but we'll go back and take a look at that. So,

it's a very good point.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. DC, go ahead.

DR. PRINCE: Thanks. So, the first 

question I have is around the usage of clearly described. 

What's clear to you isn't necessarily clear to me. And 

so, I realize that what you're doing is trying to address 

something based on a set of complaints that people have 

had and you've noticed as Denise has said, you know, 

around it being buried, what is the expectations of 

Department as it defines its authority to review, to say 

what is and isn't clearly described of this particular 

process?
49

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

MR. MARTIN: Well and like by clear we 

mean that the- that if you're obtaining a student's 

authorization to do something, that in that 

authorization, that written authorization has to describe 

exactly what- what's the student authorizing you to do. 

You know, you're basically- what's happening is your- the 

student's authorizing you to use their Title IV money to 

cover something other than tuition and fees and room and 

board, if it's provided by the institution. Those things 

you do not need a student authorization for. Everything 

else, you do. So, in providing these authorizations, what 

we're saying here is that you have to be- you have to 

disclose- you have to be in the authorization. What is it 

you're obtaining the authorization for? We're going to 

use your funds for the purchase of books and supplies. 

We're- you know, whatever it is that the student is 

authorizing you to do so, especially with respect to the 

authorization for- the opt-in authorization for books and 

supplies that are provided by the institution as part of 

the course. So, we want to make that very clear that 

that's what the student's authorizing the school to do in 

this case is to use their Title IV money for these books 

and supplies, as opposed to just a very generalized 

statement that doesn't really tell the student where the 

money is going.
50

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

DR. PRINCE: Does the Department- by 

agreeing does the Department take responsibility to then 

provide examples of what it means to be clear to a 

student, so that the level of ambiguity and the diversity 

of thought around this is minimal or minuscule, to the 

point where you understand what is clear. Because I think 

the issue we run into again is there's an expectation 

that something is written in a certain way, presented in 

a certain way, but then may not necessarily be in the way 

we use the terminology clear or coherent or, 

understandable, really, is what I think what we're trying 

to get to, in the language that we might find ourselves 

with, you know, varying opinion on what it means to be 

clear, or what it means to be understandable or coherent 

or, you know, that individual, whether they're first time 

in college or not or high income versus low [inaudible] 

whatever you're trying to do that they really understand 

what they're signing up to. So is that- is the Department 

willing to do that in order to getMR. MARTIN: Well, I don't- I mean, 

obviously we're not going to- I don't think if you're 

saying, will the Department agree to take- assume 

responsibility for where a school has failed to do this, 

no. As far as what we describeDR. PRINCE: That's not what I was 
51

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

asking. Let me clarifyMR. MARTIN: What we describe is 

clear, you know, I don't think there's been- I don't 

think we're going to be able to have a dictionary 

definition of clear. We have in the past done- you know, 

given examples of including but not limited to, things 

like that. It might be we can put some more language 

around this. I see David has his hand up, so maybe he has 

some ideas.

MR. MUSSER: Sure. Yeah, I- DC, I take 

your point, I think, if I'm understanding you correctly, 

that, you know, the word clear has a lot of different 

meanings to a lot of different people. And a lot of times 

when we have language like this, the Department is trying 

to get at a concept that really you can't nail down with 

exactitude. You can't actually say, this is clear in 

every case. And this is not clear in every case. What we 

often do though, is we provide examples of things that 

are- the Department does consider to be acceptable and 

examples of things that we would not consider to be 

acceptable. And we could do that both in the preamble to 

the final to the NPRM and the final rules. We certainly 

could- can and almost surely will do that in the FSA 

handbook, which is the guide that schools most frequently 

use when they look to us to give them guidance about 
52

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

this. But from a compliance perspective, you know, most 

of the time when- if this were to come up in a compliance 

context, it's likely because, either there were student 

complaints that the information that they were given sort 

of obfuscated the way that the process actually played 

out or the Department, in a program review, sees that 

very little information was given, so much so that even 

the reviewer couldn't understand how the process was 

intended to play out. So, I do- but I definitely do hear 

you that it would be helpful for the Department to 

illustrate what we mean by clear in this context. And we 

can- I think we can certainly put some thought into that 

and try to get some explanations on that front.

DR. PRINCE: No, thanks, and I just 

want to clarify, I wasn't asking the Department to take 

responsibility for this, but to your point, to provide 

examples of what you mean by this. Because I was a bit 

taken back by Greg's comment. That's not what I was 

insinuating. The second question I have is around this 

separate from other documents. And again, what is thewhat example are you saying that was- it was buried under 

something? Because I could see- does it have to be awhen you say separate document, is it a separate chapter 

within like the enrollment document that institutions 

provide, or is it at the time in which the activity needs 
53

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

to become a priority for that individual? That has to be 

a separate form they can pull down from the website. I 

think when you- when this terminology of a separate 

document, it- again, I think there's a level of clarity, 

but [inaudible] isn't for at least saying where it should 

be located, what it should say, when it should take 

place. And it's just not clear from the discussions I've 

heard here, as well as what I'm reading on the document 

that is being requested of. It's just saying that it 

should be a separate document outside of what is 

required. Well, you know, again, that can- you give up 

too much authority by giving too many institutions 

different ways of doing this without narrowing down the 

level of expectation that's necessary.

MR. MARTIN: That's a very good point. 

I think you make a very good point, DC, about the- when 

you say separate, you know, but previously, you know, 

what- now when we've looked at this for authorizations, 

certainly what I can tell you- I can give you an example 

of something that would be absolutely prohibited, which 

would be, you know, some schools require institutionsrequire students to accept a- an award offer. And that's 

allowed. That's allowed. So, they will require a student 

to sign to accept an award offer so student can sign to 

do that. You cannot have it in such a way that by signing 
54

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

to accept the offer of aid, you're also providing the 

authorization that would be explicitly prohibited. Now, 

to your point, which is a little more nuanced about, you 

know, student signs enrollment agreement, right? So 

generally, there's a signature block in an enrollment 

agreement. Likewise, we would not permit or find it 

permissible for a student to have to- when they sign the 

enrollment agreement to, in signing that enrollment 

agreement, also authorizing the school to do any of these 

things. Now, if you're getting down to the level of 

granularity, where would it be okay for in an agreement, 

the student- I mean, yeah, an agreement the student is 

going to sign that there's different signature blocks in 

that agreement and by signing here you're offeringyou're allowing the authorizations and by down here 

you're offering something else? We have said in the past, 

as a matter of policy, that there has to be separate 

signatures for each thing, right? So, I don't think we've 

gone so far as- the question is, does it need to be 

separate physical documents? That's- we might be able to 

put some more clarifying language around that, I believe 

in the preamble, but I noticed Denise has some comments 

and so let me turn it over to her.

MS. MORELLI: Well, I mean, I 

understand what you're saying is it could be one thing 
55

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

for one person, but I think we got to look at all of this 

as like a reasonableness standard. When we say separate, 

because what I've seen and I do a lot of work with the 

program review team, is it'll be buried in a tiny little 

spot in the enrollment agreement or with other, like, 

information, accepting a locker at the school or 

whatever. They- one of the reasons we're doing this is we 

deal with a lot of bad actors that try to get around the 

rules, right? So, we will see these buried and we go do 

program review and interview students and they're saying, 

I didn't know I told them they could keep that credit 

balance. I didn't understand what I was doing because 

it's buried with a bunch of other documents because we'll 

see documents 15 pages deep and the authorization is 

buried on one tiny little piece on the credit balances. 

So, what we want to do is make sure it's clear and in a 

separate document that's dealing with the credit balance 

authorization, so that students are not duped into 

signing something when they're just getting their, you 

know, equipment or getting their locker or getting some 

other kind of documentation. And I think as we apply all 

of our regulations, there is a reasonableness standard 

that the Department uses in determining whether or not it 

meets the standard. So, I think that's what we're dealing 

with here. If you have other language you would like to 
56

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

see us look at, we'll be happy to do so. But I think we 

were looking at the- you know, clearly and was separate 

at being something that the student could look at and 

right away understand what they're getting into with 

signing away their credit balances or allowing the school 

to hold them.

DR. PRINCE: Yeah, I think the thing 

that I'm- if [inaudible] approach, this is not 

necessarily going after bad actors, but where is the 

shift, the culture shift in higher education to make sure 

that we are communicating effectively to students about 

these kinds of things? I think that's, for me, that's it. 

I don't- we don't have a lot of bad actors in our space, 

right? Everyone is doing what they're supposed to be 

doing. That's for other divisions to think about. But I 

think ultimately, if it's just a separate signature 

around that, that is not buried because then if you 

require a separate signature, not a signature for the 

page, a signature for that actual statement, I think that 

would be more acceptable here. Because again, I think 

what you're- what we're trying to- what we're trying to 

do, or at least from my perspective in the discussions 

we're having, is how do we think about the authorization 

of parents and students more broadly and our institutions 

about how we're processing and using, whether it's their 
57

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

information, their finances, the money that they're 

accessing from the government, whatever the case may be. 

And so how do we do that with an appropriateness that 

shifts more about the culture, rather than trying to 

focus on bad actors, right, or the people who get in 

trouble. And so, I would just open- be open to- hope 

you're open to being more specific about what- not a 

separate document that is required, but maybe a specific 

signature or something that highlights the parents and 

students what they're signing, what that means. So, I 

think what you're going to get into is, well, it is a 

separate document. It's this chapter and something else. 

I think there are so many ways that I could think through 

how to make sure it's a separate document, still part of 

a general processes and I think that you're trying to get 

away from. So I think that's where we might want to have 

that particular discussion and change an arrangement.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you all for that 

exchange. Anything new or additional to add for the 

committee's consideration on 668.165(b)? I'm not seeing 

any hands initially. Greg, just a suggestion, do you want 

to take a temperature check on this? Hear from any folks 

that might have anything to add and then take, like, a 

20-minute break or so? I know we usually endeavor to do a 

break in the afternoon.
58

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

MR. MARTIN: Yeah. I think if- I think 

we can take our 15-minute break after we take a 

temperature check on this.

MR. ROBERTS: 15? Okay, sounds good. 

Well, so in that case, we'll take one final temperature 

check before the break on the entirety of the text that's 

in 668.165(b), Student or Parent Authorizations. If folks 

want to indicate where they are on the changes thus far 

in the reg text with their thumbs. I see three thumbs 

down, I believe. I see Jillian, Jason, and DC. Did I miss 

anyone?

MS. KLEIN: My thumb is sideways. 

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, I apologize. Sorry, 

the angle wasMS. KLEIN: I think Jo is down, 

though.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, what was it, Jo? I 

apologize.

MS. BLONDIN: Jo Blondin was sideways.

MR. MARTIN: Gotcha.

MS. JEFFRIES: Yeah, and Dom was down.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, and Dom. Sorry. I 

think that's where it was. Because [inaudible]-

MS. JEFFRIES: Let me just capture 

these.
59

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

MR. ROBERTS: Yeah.

MS. JEFFRIES: Who did you say, Brady? 

MR. ROBERTS: I believe it was Jason, 

Dom, and DC.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MR. ROBERTS: But again, if I missed 

anyone, mischaracterized anyone, let me know. Dom, Jason, 

or DC, anything you'd like to add to the conversation? 

Anything that wasn't previously articulated for the 

committee's consideration that would, at minimum, bring 

you to a sideways thumb, you would withhold potential 

future consensus when we took that vote? Yeah, Dom, go 

ahead.

MR. CHASE: Yeah. Just briefly, I 

think it's important to add context to the thumbs down. I 

fully believe in transparency, but I believe this 

language is inextricably connected to previous things 

we've discussed. So, that's the reason for the down vote.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. And then 

Jason.

MR. LORGAN: You know, I think I agree 

with exactly what Dom just said.

MR. ROBERTS: Gotcha.

MR. LORGAN: I'll leave it at that.

MR. ROBERTS: Yeah, yeah. Understood. 
60

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

Gotcha. And then DC, anything to add or your- gotcha. 

Yeah, we captured that in the previous discussion. Great. 

So, by my watch, I have 2:22. Do we want to endeavor to 

be back at around 2:40 to finish the discussion on cash 

management and then move into public comment?

MR. MARTIN: I think that sounds good.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, we'll see everyone 

in about 17 minutes if that's okay. Welcome back, 

everyone. We are going to continue our discussion on 

issue paper related to cash management. Before we kick 

things off again, I do just want to let folks know who do 

have a scheduled slot for their public comment today to 

endeavor to log on 15 minutes before your scheduled time. 

Please try to log on with the name that you registered 

under, and you'll be in the waiting room, and then you'll 

be admitted promptly once you're speaking time comes up. 

So, if you can start logging on 15 minutes before your 

time, that really does help us ensure that we can get 

everyone who signed up, their three minutes to address 

the committee. So, with that, I'll turn it right back 

over to Greg and his team to tee us up for our next 

topic, which is 668.167, Returning Funds and 

Overpayments.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you. Brady. Welcome 

back, everybody. As Brady said, we will be looking at 
61

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

668.167. And while Vanessa is pulling that up for us, a 

couple of remarks I want to make about this section. So, 

here, we didn't propose any substantive changes here. 

However, we did receive a number of data requests, which 

we're working to provide responses to. We also wanted to 

talk through a number of questions on the Department's 

process and overpayments, and we will be doing that 

momentarily, as related to the specific process the 

Department has for collecting these debts. Before we do 

that, let's just go back to what we originally had 

proposed under overpayments. We moved everything that had 

to do with- and I'll go back to the discussion of this 

briefly just to reiterate what we did. And there is a 

note to the committee at the bottom of page nine that 

again reviews everything that we propose with this 

section. And by and large, we propose to rename 167, 

which was severability. We have a new 168 for that and 

changing this to return- returning funds and overpayments 

and moving all of the regulatory requirements that were 

spread throughout the regulations into this section. We 

did talk about that at the last- during our last meeting, 

specifically what changes we made. I want to just- and we 

did talk about this already. But I want to reference that 

again. We- with respect to overpayments for grant 

overpayments, we changed I think for TEACH grant the 
62

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

amount of the overpayment from a student is not liable 

for from $25- less than $25 to less than $50. And that 

conforms with statutory rules about what students are 

required to repay under R2T4 for grant overpayments. The 

same for FSEOG from $25 to $50. And we also for Direct 

Loan overpayments, under (g), we changed the student is 

not, or rather, we rather put there- added that a student 

is not liable for. And the institution is not required to 

attempt recovery of a Direct Loan overpayment if the 

amount is less than $100 and is not a remaining balance. 

Federal Student Loan servicers and lenders must write off 

totals for borrowers, principals, and interest of $100 or 

less after 30 days. That simply conforms to the statutory 

requirements related to the Direct Loan program and 

servicing of that program. So having thought about that, 

what I'd like to do- those are the only changes. Those 

were the same as the changes that we presented to you 

before. What I'd like to discuss now in 167(b) is 

overpayment timelines. And the timeframes within which 

all of this is collected. And you will note there that we 

have the overpayment timelines we've put in here for 

overpayments for which the student is responsible and 

that are not tied to nonattendance to return Title IV 

funds. Institutions must promptly send a written notice 

to the student requesting repayment of the overpayment 
63

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

amount. Institutions have 30 calendar days from the date 

the notice was sent to recover the overpayment in full or

enter into a repayment arrangement with the student that 

is satisfactory to the institution. And then two, we say 

if the initial 30 days has elapsed, have elapsed rather, 

and the institution has not received the full overpayment 

or made satisfactory repayment arrangements, the 

institution has 15 calendar days to report the 

overpayment to NSLDS and refer the overpayment to the 

Department. For FSA grant overpayments for which the 

institution is responsible, institutions have 45 days, 45 

calendar days from the date of discovery, to restore the 

fund. So, what I've given you there is a little bit of 

background and context about the requirements for 

collection of overpayments that are due from students and 

timeliness associated with that. And last time we were 

together, there was considerable interest in looking at 

the Department's current process for how that is 

accomplished, where students owe overpayments. And it 

would be the situation where the school would not be 

entering into a repayment arrangement with the student, 

and the school would have reported the overpayment to 

NSLDS and referred that overpayment to the Department for 

collection and what happens at the point where the 

Department takes over that responsibility. So, we have 
64

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

some material for you today and are lucky to have David 

Musser with us. David works in FSA, and they are the 

responsible entity for this. So, what we're going to do 

now is just turn it over to David Musser, and he will 

walk through that process with you. David, if you 

wouldn't mind.

MR. MUSSER: Thanks, Greg. Yeah, we 

did some research with our colleagues in FSA who 

specifically work on this process. And so, I want to go 

through each of the questions that we received on this 

topic to give you guys a better sense of how the process 

plays out in practice. So, the first question I think 

that's probably easiest to address is who is the 

Department's contractor for collection on Pell Grant 

overpayments and it's maximum- Maximus Federal Services, 

the same contractor that we use for debt collections. And 

there's- there was a question about what kinds of 

instructions or guidelines has the Department provided 

for the negotiation of payment plans? So, when a school 

refers a- an overpayment to the Department, they're also 

required to report the student to NSLDS. When they do 

that, the student loses Title IV eligibility during that 

period. Once the overpayment reaches the Department's 

contractor for collection on these overpayments, the 

contractor will reach out to the student to provide the 
65

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

student with information about how they can enter into a 

repayment plan and regain their Title IV eligibility. If 

the student does enter into that payment plan, they 

immediately regain Title IV eligibility and will retain 

it, unless they fail to make a payment, at which point 

they will be asked to repay the full amount and they will 

no longer be Title IV eligible until that full amount is 

repaid. So that's sort of the general process. Now, we 

were also asked, and it's a good question, how does the 

Department determine what the payment plan will be? So 

essentially, the Department relies on the same 

regulations that apply to Direct Loan rehabilitations. 

And the first thing the Department does is offer a 

payment equal to 15% of the amount by which the 

borrower's income exceeds 150% of the poverty line. And 

then if the debtor cannot make that payment, they are 

permitted to submit the rehabilitation income and 

expenses form, which you can find on Studentaid.gov, and 

provide special circumstances and give an indication of 

what they can afford. The Department can then reduce 

that- the payment for the individual, not down to $0, but 

there is no technical minimum, aside from zero. So, it 

could be as low and has been in some cases, as low as $5 

or $10 per month. The student is informed of the 

repayment plan options in the welcome letter that they've 
66

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

received from the Department, and that they have the 

option of contacting us to establish a reasonable and 

affordable repayment option. That letter is sent 

immediately after the debt is accepted by the Department. 

And it gives the individual 65 days to avoid treasury 

offset. And if they don't respond during that period, we 

do refer that debt for treasury offset. So, I'm going to 

pause there and ask if there are any questions or any 

other- anything else that I can clarify about the process 

that's currently used for overpayments before we go on. 

Sophie Laing. Go ahead.

MS. LAING: Thanks so much. That's a 

really helpful background. I was just wondering if it's 

possible to get any data on how many students are 

actually entering into these payment plans. I think that 

I've never come across them. I think the same was true 

for Robyn and other legal aid folks that we talked to 

that we've never seen these sorts of payment plans. So,

it would be really helpful to get a sense of if it's a 

lot of students accessing these plans and accessing low 

dollar amounts, or if students still- if the process 

still isn't really clear for students. And then the other 

question I had was if the Department is willing to 

consider kind of updating those guidelines to match the 

SAVE Plan more than the IBR plan since the SAVE Plan is 
67

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

now in place and is a lot more generous for low-income 

students. And these students in particular could benefit 

from even lower dollar amounts to pay back these 

overpayments because they are Pell Grant overpayments,

and they receive them because they are low income. And 

so, I think we'd asked if the Department would consider 

changing those guidelines for the payment arrangements.

MR. MUSSER: So, Greg, let me first 

answer the question about the data, and then I'll turn it 

over to Greg for the second part of your question, 

Sophie. We are still working on your- on data requests 

that you've submitted. That should provide at least the 

majority of those items. I'm not sure if we have theenough of a breakdown for what you requested, but, once 

we have the data and it's fully validated, we will send 

it around, and you can make an additional request. And I 

believe we could track that down for you before the third 

session. And then I'll hand it off to Greg to respond to 

your second point.

MS. LAING: Thanks.

MR. MARTIN: Thanks, Dave. Yes, so as 

far as like aligning the options for repayment with SAVE, 

we've not considered that. I want to say that we have- we 

are willing to consider any suggestions- proposals you 

have. There are some limitations. We have, for instance-
68

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

so, we don't- you know, as far as income goes for 

students, we would not be able to rely on the IRS for 

that for this purpose. We'd have to, I guess, have 

students provide their own documentation of their income. 

We haven't given that particular process a great deal of 

consideration yet, but I think if you- what I would say 

is to anybody on the committee, all of you, if you have 

specific proposals for how such a process might work, 

please feel free to provide us with those. I'm not- we're 

not taking anything off the table. I can't make any 

guarantees as to what we can do when we've looked at it 

from a legal standpoint and one of resources as well. But 

we're certainly- and I and I do take your point that yes, 

these are Pell Grant overpayments or FSEOG overpayments. 

One, to- one is to people with need and then FSEOGs, 

individuals who are already Pell Grant recipients, 

generally speaking, have very low [inaudible], if not 

zero. And so therefore have exceptional needs. So, we're 

talking about people who are fairly stressed financially. 

So, I think that there is a willingness and an interest 

in- on the part of the Department to look at what- doing 

whatever we can do to facilitate the- you know, getting 

the money back, of course. It is owed but making it as 

least- less onerous for students if we can do that. I 

also want to point out that with this- with the 
69

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

collection options that you asked for the data that Dave 

discussed, there's also, you know, some schools, I want 

to point this out, some schools don't- if there's an 

overpayment, whether it's- obviously if it's the school's 

fault, the school has to make good on that, right? We 

know that. But if it's an overpayment that's the 

student's- liability to the student, some schools will 

simply pay that or simply they'll simply restore the fund 

and then either write it off as a student or the school. 

So just whatever data you receive, you know, that would 

be the ones that we have, which might not be indicative 

of every instance where an overpayment was owed. I just 

want to point that out. So again, we're willing to take

any suggestions, hearing discussion about it. And so,

I'll leave it at that and then turn it back over to Dave 

if he has something else he wants to say or entertain 

other comments.

MR. ROBERTS: Doesn't look like it. 

But, Sophie, did you- oh, sorry, go ahead, Dave.

MR. MUSSER: I was going to say, I 

want Sophie to go first if she has something and then I 

can talk.

MS. LAING: Thanks. I guess just two 

things to clarify. One is that it seems like there's 

already a process of getting students' financial 
70

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

information if they are entering into payment 

arrangements. And I was just suggesting that instead of 

the kind of IBR formula, we allow them to access the more 

generous SAVE formula, but it doesn't seem like that 

would actually require more or different information than 

putting them in the IBR formula. It would just be 

applying a different formula. And then, although, correct 

me if I'm wrong, and then the other question, I think 

just on the data point, is if it would be possible to see 

those exact instructions that- or like manual that FSA 

provides to Maximus on the collection of these debts.

MR. MUSSER: I don't know if we can 

submit just the manual, although I think it would be 

helpful for folks to see the letter that we send to 

students, and I believe that should be possible. So, I'll 

see if I can track that down. Yeah, maybe to help 

characterize the proposal a little bit better, I want to 

just sort of express how I viewed the proposal that we 

received on this topic. As you heard from my description, 

the current process treats an overpayment a little bit 

like a loan, a defaulted loan, and gives the students 

very similar options, which I believe are quite flexible 

because those situations call for flexibility. You don't 

know what the individual circumstances are. You need to 

give them some leeway in terms of how much they can 
71

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

repay. On the other hand, I can understand the desire to 

give a little bit more flexibility to the student and 

have terms that are somewhat less onerous, as Greg 

described. If I understood the proposal correctly, it 

would transition from an approach that sort of looks at 

an overpayment as a defaulted loan and one that looks 

like a loan that is just going into repayment, like any 

other loan. And I believe that there are some limitations 

in terms of how the Department handles overpayments that 

may prevent us from treating it in exactly the same way. 

But I think we are open to, potentially making changes to 

the process that make it more- at least more similar to 

the way that loans are treated when an individual goes 

into repayment. One thing that we do, I think, with- in 

internal discussions do feel strongly about is that the 

initial entity that should be provided with the 

opportunity to obtain the amount of the overpayment is 

still the school, both for the reason that Greg just 

mentioned as that many schools take it upon themselves to 

fulfill that obligation simply by repaying the amount the 

student owes on their own, but also because in many 

instances, you know, we- if it's a small overpayment 

amount especially, the student often finds that working 

with the school is simpler than having to go through the 

Department and going through what I would, I imagine, 
72

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

would be a rather scary process of working with the 

government for this amount that they seemed to have 

overpaid. But that aside, I think we are open to other 

changes that have been proposed. So, if you- if you guys 

want to have further discussion on this, I think this is 

a good time for it.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Barmak.

MR. NASSIRIAN: I don't have any 

specific proposal, and I understand where the 

Department's coming from. But by virtue of the process 

you just described, obviously this is not, in most 

instances, the case of an individual who's able to but is 

unwilling to repay. It's typically by the time the stuff 

comes your way, this is an individual who's obviously 

unable, who's navigated a fairly scary process already 

and has landed in your lap. I would strongly support 

treating them as leniently as possible because it's kind 

of self-defeating if you offer them a repayment scheme 

that is still not workable for them, you’re checkmating 

them for, you know, potentially permanently, from 

pursuing education by rendering them ineligible and 

getting them a way out of the situation they're in. So,

to whatever extent the Department can be more lenient and 

follow something that is more proximate to the SAVE 

approach, I think that would be appropriate. Thank you.
73

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Sophie, go 

ahead.

MS. LAING: Thanks. One, I just had a 

question about the- when schools, I guess kind of cover 

this debt if they're- if that means that they truly cover 

it or if they cover it, but then turn it into an 

institutional debt that the student still has to pay back 

otherwise, or if they're truly just kind of waiving or 

covering the cost? I guess that's one question I had. And 

then I think the other one is just kind of a clarifying 

question of whether or not, we can kind of re-up or 

resubmit our proposal to treat this more like regular 

loan debt and get people access to grace period and the 

SAVE Plan. I think our major concern here is that 

students are dropping out due to really- or withdrawing 

or whatever due to really, really difficult circumstances 

and we don't think that they should be subject to, you 

know, more onerous requirements than necessary to access 

more aid or just to be able to repay this debt.

MR. MARTIN: With respect to the first 

question, I think that it- I don't think there's a 

standard practice. I don't have any- we wouldn't have any 

statistics on the extent to which schools automatically 

restore the funds.

MR. MUSSER: Well, I actually want to 
74

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

butt in on this one, Greg. I apologize.

MR. MARTIN: No, go ahead.

MR. MUSSER: In cases where it's a 

student overpayment and the school covers it, the- there 

is no institutional debt because the amounts that the 

student got generally is- generally remains on the 

account. They don't have to take- the school doesn't have 

to send anything back. So, they're not creating a new 

institutional debt. I'm trying to think of any 

circumstance where that might not be the case. But the 

only time that the school sends money back that creates 

an institutional debt typically is when the school made 

an error, and the school is responsible for it. So, yeah, 

let me- give me a minute and try to think through the 

circumstances where the school might end up causing the 

student to owe a balance to them in these cases. But I 

don't think that would happen in very many instances.

MR. MARTIN: Yes, that's what I was 

saying, we don't have a lot- we don't have anything 

established in regulations as to how this actually works. 

I think we have to- give us a little bit to think about 

exactly how that would play out in this circumstance. I 

do think law schools do- I think law schools routinely, 

as Dave said, just make good on it. And that's it. 

There's nothing- but I'm thinking, Dave, if they have to-
75

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

if the amount of power the student receives is reduced, 

well, we'll have to take that- let's take that back and 

think on that, and we'll try to get you a better answer 

tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you all. 

Zack, go ahead.

MR. GOODWIN: Thank you, Brady. Maybe 

this is what was being thought of- I've seen a couple of 

things at different institutions, but if a student's 

account balance is brought to zero and then it's learned 

after the fact that the student has an overpayment that 

they're responsible for and the school repays it on their 

behalf, if, say that was $500, they will repay the 

Department $500 or reduce the Pell Grant by $500, and 

that becomes a debt that the student then owes to the 

school instead of the Department.

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, I think that- I 

think you're right that that could happen if the schoolI mean, and obviously the school would probably- making 

it- you'd have to make an adjustment to [inaudible] to 

reduce the amount and either send it back through G5 or 

netted out against another draw. But the money goes- the 

moneys off the student account- would- could create a 

balance on the account. But as I said, we'll definitelygood point, we'll definitely take that all back and give 
76

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

it some consideration.

MR. GOODWIN: Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Any other questions, 

items for consideration, proposed changes on this section 

of the reg text? Oh, Jamie, go ahead. You're muted right 

now by the way.

MS. STUDLEY: When you say section are 

we- are you just in a- what unit of measure are we on?

MR. ROBERTS: That's a very good 

question. I was going to turn to Greg to bail me out of 

that one.

MR. MARTIN: I'm willing to entertain 

anything on one 167 in general. 

MR. ROBERTS: I was going to say we 

were talking about overpayment, but anything in general, 

I think probably is where we would move now.

MS. STUDLEY: Okay. Two thoughts, just 

as somebody who once had the financial aid office report 

to me at a small school with a small number of students. 

Two things. One, I think the discussion that we've just 

been having about the most favorable approach for 

students makes sense. It also might have the effect of 

fewer different formulae and scheme- schemas for student 

calculation out in- just out in play for people to keep 

track of the fewer different boxes and programs. That 
77

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

takes me to a very specific just observation I leave to 

the Department to do this. I know that there are lots of 

different timeframes floating around, but when I read (b) 

and see 30 days for this, then 15, then 45, I picture my 

beloved Zena Schaffer, the financial aid director, like 

what, what was the- I just wonder whether the 15 really 

needs to be 15 for an important interest of the 

Department's, or whether there are fewer different ways 

to do these things that do not deserve, you know, that 

don't deprive students of anything, don't burden the 

Department, but just try and keep the, you know, the 

overheating of the brain and the reprograming of the 

computer system. There are just enough of these to keep 

track of. It's a small point, but it actually makes itcan make a difference in the daily operations that people 

have to keep track of, and the risk of innocent error.

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, I take your point 

there. I think with the number of days we have- but I- to 

explain it, a couple of things. So, the first thing is, 

the institution being aware of the overpayment, right, 

that it exists. So that's the first one, that they'reit's not tied to the return Title IV funds. The 

institution must promptly send notice to the student. So,

we're talking about if the institution has to send a 

notice to the student that this exists, what's a 
78

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

reasonable amount of time to offer the institution to do 

that? So, we do have to have- we do feel the need to have 

a specific- to have something to say, you have to do this 

in a reasonable amount of time. What is reasonable? 30 

days is a timeframe that we frequently use. It's not 

sacrosanct, but as I always point out, any number is to a 

certain extent- I'm not going to use the A word again, 

but it is- yeah, but it comes from somewhere, right? I 

mean, I always point out why is the age of majority 18 

and not 17, and for 55 days, you know, we- these are 

agreed upon things that have happened. So here we're 

giving the school 30 days. And then they have then- they 

have 30 days to send the notice to the student. And theythen they have 30 days when the notice is sent. But for 

overpayments, which [inaudible] responsible, it must 

promptly notify the student. We don't give the days 

there. I'm sorry. We don't give the number of days there. 

But generally, we've said it has to be promptly. They 

have 30 days from the date the notice is sent to recover 

the overpayment or enter the- enter into an arrangement. 

So they send the notice to the student. We have to give a 

reasonable amount of time for the student to act, you 

know, so that we've determined 30 days is a reasonable 

amount of time for the student to act by either paying it 

back to the school or for the school to enter into an 
79

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

over- into a repayment arrangement with the student. So 

now we have- the initial 30 days has elapsed and 

nothing's come back from the student. There’re no 

satisfactory arrangements. What's the school have to do 

at that point? So, what we're saying here is that we 

wouldn't want the student to report the student 

immediately because, as David pointed out, the instant 

the institution goes on to NSLDS and indicates the 

overpayment, that student is no longer eligible. So, you 

have to give the student time to react to this. So that's 

why, you know, from that 30 days is elapsed- then you 

have the 15 calendar days. That keys to the Department's 

requirements for reporting generally for like when COD 

reporting has to take place. So, these are all 

conventions that key to- the 15 days is more a reporting 

thing, right? The 30 daysMS. STUDLEY: So, they're drawn from 

other- okay, that makes sense. [Inaudible] mean drawn 

from different processes.

MR. MARTIN: Yeah, I'm not sure that 

there's anything sacred about these number of days, but 

they seem reasonable to keep the- I mean, what's

reasonable to allow students- schools time to do what 

they have to do, students time to react, and then finally 

the school time to actually do what they have to do, 
80

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

which is- the reporting in NSLDS is easy enough. That's 

an electronic process. The referral is still partially 

paper. I think the school goes in NSLDS and indicates 

it's turned it over to the Department. But then there is 

a paper referral process, after which time the Department 

will get the referral from the school. And then the 

Department goes on to NSLDS and makes an indication that 

the overpayment is transferred to the Department. At 

least that's the way it used to work. I think that'sMS. STUDLEY: If I take your point, 

Greg, that the numbers come from some other benchmark. 

Yeah, they generally do where 15 is standard for that. 

And there just happened to line up here in a way that 

looks confusing. I defer to the Department.

MR. MARTIN: Generally, we have to- I 

mean whenever we use days, it's sort of incumbent upon us 

and our legal people at the Department want- don't like 

to see just days pulled up from nowhere, that there 

should be some, you know, there should be some- you 

should key to something. You know, there should be some 

basis for why we use this number of days. Congress can do 

whatever it wants for days and weeks and months. But we 

can't. So, we have to find something. And so, we usually 

go back to [inaudible]. That's why- I don't know, Dave, 

do you have anything you want to add to that discussion?
81

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

MR. ROBERTS: Doesn't look like it. 

Any other questions, elements for the committee to 

consider? And this is looking at the whole of that larger 

section. Any other questions from the Department? Greg, 

did you want to walk through anything else or-?

MR. MARTIN: No, that's pretty much it 

with respect to 167. You know, as we're thinking about 

whether, you know, where- as you're thinking about where 

you stand on this with respect to a temperature check, I 

would just- a couple of things. Number one, most of what 

we did here was moving disassociated pieces in the 

regulations that had to do with overpayments into one 

area, which I think was a great idea of why we did it. So 

that's one thing. We made a few tweaks for those number 

of days. And, with this- the overpayment timelines. So 

[inaudible] that. I think one thing we don't have here 

yet is, you know, in talking about the Department's 

procedures for collecting overpayments, David went 

through the process that we have now, which is procedural 

and not enshrined in regulation. Where we go from here, I

think we don't 100% know. We have to go back and consider 

that. So, I just ask the committee to keep that in mind 

that we are not closing the door on that and saying no, 

this is what we've- this is what we do, this is what 

we're going to continue to do. We will be amenable to any 
82

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

suggestions that are made. But right now, I can't really 

go any further than that, you know, to say that. We'll 

need time to digest that and see what it's- what might be 

possible for us to do and what might not be. And I don't 

know, David, you want to add- do you have anything to say 

about the process before we move on?

MR. MUSSER: No, I don't think so. I 

think you covered it, Greg. We- I think partly, you know, 

some of the considerations are practical. Some of the 

considerations are policy oriented. But we will start, I 

think, from the recommendation that you guys previously 

provided when we think through this.

MR. MARTIN: Thanks, Dave.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. So, with that, 

if we're okay to take a temperature check on the entirety 

of 167. Again, with what Greg and Dave had- keep that in 

mind, obviously. Just again, a more informal read of 

where the committee is right now, based on the discussion 

we've had thus far and what you've seen in terms of the 

reg text. If folks want to indicate where they are with a 

show of their thumbs. I believe I see one thumb down and 

that would be Sophie. Did I miss anyone? I think I got 

everyone. Thank you, thank you. I believe it was just the 

constituency representing legal aid. Sophie, did you want 

to add anything? I know there was some back and forth, 
83

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

but did you want to make sure there is anything 

additional you wanted the committee to consider in moving 

forward on this section?

MS. LAING: No, I think we covered it 

in the discussion.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. Much 

appreciated. Greg, did you want to walk through that last 

section on severability? I know it was just a move, but 

we can close that out.

MR. MARTIN: Yeah. We're not proposing 

anything here, I don't believe. Well, we are to the 

extent that we're moving it. So, unless someone has an 

objection to the fact that it's now in 168 as opposed to 

somewhere else. So, you can see here that this was 167, 

but we took 167 to move all the overpayment requirements 

into, so severability becomes 168. And we just say if any 

provision of this subpart or its application to any 

person [inaudible] invalid the remainder of the section 

or application of any person active practice should not 

be affected [inaudible] protects us in the case of 

lawsuits or something along those lines. So, I don't 

think we need to take a vote on that. But- not a vote, 

rather a temperature check. So, I think we're good there. 

That should be pretty straightforward. And, yeah, that's 

great. So, I appreciate all that.
84

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. So, I'm looking at 

the time right now it's, it's, 3:16. So we'll begin 

public comment in about 14 minutes. Greg or anyone else 

in the Department, any concluding remarks on this issue 

paper just to close out day one of week two?

MR. MARTIN: Well, I guess I would 

just want to thank everybody for the- what I thought was 

a very, very good discussion today about everything here. 

And I thank everybody for where we could come to an 

agreement that we're moving in the right direction. I 

know that we have some disparity of opinion on a couple 

of sections, but I want to say that I think everybody 

expressed their views very succinctly and made it very 

clear why they stand where they stand. And we certainly 

respect where everybody's coming from with that. I 

thought the discussion was really good. I look forward to 

picking up tomorrow with state authorization. So that's 

about all I have to say. I don't know, David, Denise, 

anything else you want to add? Okay. At this point, I 

think it's a little- given we only have like ten minutes, 

I don't really want to take up state authorization with 

ten minutes. So, I don't know what- we're in a bit of an 

awkward situation.

MR. ROBERTS: No, no, no, I was going 

to say, any final remarks, anyone on the committee? I 
85

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

know we've had a lot of robust dialog today, so if anyone 

has any additional thoughts or questions or comments or 

things for the committee to consider, feel free to do so 

now. Otherwise, what I would suggest is we could just 

take maybe like a quick, five- or so-minute break and 

then actually begin public comment a little bit early. 

So, in that case, we do always have a waiting list of 

people that ask to speak but didn't get an assigned slot. 

So, we can allow those folks to get an opportunity to 

address the committee. Does that sound okay to everyone?

MR. MARTIN: That sounds great if 

there's no other comments.

MR. ROBERTS: Any concluding remarks, 

Cindy, anything from the FMCS team? No? Okay. So, in that 

case, if folks do want to take a quick five-minute break 

just to get up and stretch their legs, we'll come back, 

right at maybe 3:25. And then we'll roll right into 

public comment with some time built in for some folks on 

the waiting list as well. Welcome back, everyone. I hope 

you enjoyed that very brief break. As we do in all 

negotiated rulemakings, we're going to reserve the last 

portions today for our public comment period. Members of 

the public are given three minutes to address the 

committee. We give them a quick heads up, and we endeavor 

to include as many folks as possible. We always keep a 
86

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

waiting list in case there's a no-show. And we have a 

little extra time today. So, if you did receive an email 

that you have a public speaking slot or even that you're 

on the waitlist, feel free to start logging in so we can 

ensure that we have time to hear from you. But with that, 

I think, John, we can admit our first public speaker of 

the day.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Brady. Our 

first speaker today is Cheri Kittrell, professor from 

State College of Florida.

MR. ROBERTS: Good afternoon, 

Professor Kittrell. Can you hear me? Looks like she's 

connecting to audio. Hi, Cheri. Can you hear me?

DR. KITTRELL: Yes, I can.

MR. ROBERTS: Excellent. We can hear 

you and we can see you. Welcome to public comment. You'll 

be given three minutes to address the committee with a 

30-second heads up when your time is about to expire, and 

your time will begin whenever you're ready.

DR. KITTRELL: Thank you. Good 

afternoon. My name is Dr. Cheri Kittrell, and I'm a 

professor of psychology and department psychology 

coordinator at State College of Florida. Thank you for 

giving me the opportunity to speak today. I wanted to 

share the experience that I've had with my students as it 
87

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

concerns inclusive access, which is known as easy access 

on our campus. My general psychology students were some 

of the very first students on our campus to pilot easy 

access. The success that we saw across early engagement 

in class, retention in our courses, and student and 

faculty satisfaction with the program led to a more 

widespread availability of easy access as an option for 

our faculty. One of the most important choices for 

faculty when selecting a textbook is about cost to the 

student. Inclusive access certainly has the benefit of 

being the lowest price that students have ever paid for 

my textbook, $20 lower, in fact. Additionally, students 

don't have to wait for financial aid to pay for their 

books or to try and figure out trial versions of the 

course materials, which still often expired before many 

students straightened out problems with multiple funding 

sources. Prior to easy access, students who did have 

financial aid were limited to buying their books at the 

bookstore and were subject to whatever markup the 

bookstore had, as well as a dizzying array of versions 

that students never understood. They were confused by 

used versions that seemed cheaper but didn't have a 

required course code, and they often missed out on deals 

that they would have gotten if they'd bought a packaged 

version. Additionally, the bookstore would only order a 
88

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

small percentage of books because they assume students 

would buy from other outlets or may not buy a book at 

all. So, students were fighting over the last few 

remaining book packages, and then coming back to class to 

say that it will be two weeks before the bookstore could 

get any more in stock. Students who weren't lucky enough 

to have financial aid would turn to other sources; online 

resellers, rental companies, fliers in the hallway from 

other students who had previously taken a class to resell 

their books. These other sources created a similar 

conundrum. Is it the right edition of the text for my 

current class? How similar is the fourth edition to the 

fifth edition? And while it was inconvenient for some 

students to have to wait for corrected supplies to be 

sent, for some students, that wasn't even possible based 

on the outlet where they chose to buy. Sometimes students 

were stuck with the wrong book because they couldn't 

afford to purchase another. And this issue is made far 

worse now by the fact that students are not all local to 

our institutions anymore. It can be difficult and costly 

to get books shipped to, say, American military deployed 

abroad in a timely manner. I know my time is short here 

today, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak. If 

you could take one thing away from what I've had to say 

here today, it's that the advent of inclusive access has 
89

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

been such a boon to my courses, and I cannot imagine 

going back to any other method. With inclusive access, 

every student is prepared on the first day. They always 

have the correct materials, a working course code, and 

are ready to begin work immediately. They feel prepared 

from day one.

MR. WAGNER: You have 30 seconds 

remaining.

DR. KITTRELL: This is a system that 

is working for my students, and I would hate to lose it. 

Thank you for your time.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you Dr. Kittrell, 

for your comment. We appreciate it.

DR. KITTRELL: Absolutely.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, John, I think 

we can admit our next speaker.

MR. WEATHERS: Brady, our next speaker 

is Emily Rounds. She's speaking for Third Way.

MR. ROBERTS: Hi, Emily. Can you hear 

us?

MS. ROUNDS: Yes, I can. Can you hear 

me?

MR. ROBERTS: Yep. We can hear you and 

we can see you. Welcome to public comment. You'll have 

three minutes to address the committee, and you'll be 
90

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

given a 30-second heads up. And your time begins whenever 

you're ready.

MS. ROUNDS: Great. Thank you so much. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments to the 

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. As said before, my name 

is Emily Rounds, and I'm an education policy adviser at 

Third Way, a national public policy think tank in 

Washington, D.C. Third way strongly supports the 

Department's efforts to strengthen the accreditation 

procedures related to student achievement. Accreditation 

is meant to provide a level of quality assurance for 

higher education, signaling that an institution provides 

a valuable education to students, and that schools can be 

trusted to use taxpayer dollars responsibly. But there 

are too many examples of institutions that continue to 

receive Title IV funding despite dismal student outcomes. 

In last month's session, a negotiator proposed graduation 

rates as an example of a student achievement metric. 

According to the most updated accreditor data, for the 

2021 to 22 year, 37% of accredited schools graduated less 

than half of their students. The same year, those 

institutions received more than $20 billion in Title IV 

funding. Accreditation is not delivering on its goal of 

quality assurance, largely because student achievement 

standards are not effectively implemented in 
91

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

accreditation. We urge the Department to advance the last 

session's conversations into regulations that require 

accreditors to hold institutions accountable for student 

outcomes. We ask the Department to establish common 

definitions for student success metrics, because 

accreditors can and do define student achievement 

differently for the institutions that they accredit. 

Common definitions would be a step toward greater 

accountability by promoting consistent student outcomes, 

reporting across accreditors, clarifying what is 

considered a successful outcome, and reducing the risk of 

accreditors approving underperforming institutions. We 

also urge the Department to require accreditors to set 

performance goals for the institutions that they 

accredit. To remain in good standing, institutions would 

have to meet baseline benchmarks for achievement. The 

Department must also require that accreditors and 

institutions use and report reliable data from student 

achievement metrics from federal public sources, like the 

College Scorecard or IPEDS. When it comes to protecting 

students and ensuring responsible use of taxpayer 

dollars, self-reported metrics are not sufficient. 

Accreditors should also be required to disaggregate these 

data wherever possible. Last month's negotiations 

initiated important discussions around student 
92

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

achievement and accreditation. As you pick up the 

conversation this session, we urge you to lean into the 

Department's authority to require accreditors to 

establish clear benchmarks for evaluating achievement and 

to strengthen these provisions in the final regulations. 

Thank you for your time and consideration of these 

comments.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you very much, 

Emily, for your comment. We appreciate it. Okay. John, 

who do we have next?

MR. WEATHERS: Brady, next we have 

Cheri Carter representing herself.

MR. ROBERTS: Good afternoon, Cheri. 

Can you hear us? Oh, I can see- I think you're muted 

right now.

MS. CARTER: There we go. Good 

afternoon.

MR. ROBERTS: Good afternoon. Welcome 

to public comment. You'll have three minutes to address 

the committee, and you'll be given a 30-second heads up, 

and your time begins whenever you're ready.

MS. CARTER: Alright, great. Thank 

you. Good afternoon. My name is Cheri Carter. In 2007, I 

decided to use my GI Bill to pursue a career in medical 

billing and coding because I had worked in the medical 
93

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

field as a corpsman while I was in the Navy. I enrolled 

in an accelerated online associate degree program for 

medical billing and coding at Colorado Technical 

University. I wanted the convenience of an online school 

because I was a single mother of a child with special 

needs. After enrolling, I remember thinking that 

something seemed off about the school. The teachers never 

gave us any exams or tests, not even one quiz. Instead, 

we just had to post two written assignments each week and 

comment on other student’s online posts. Almost all of us 

got As. When we had to do group work, some students never 

showed up and they still received an A. There was very 

little covered in the eight weeks of class. If a textbook 

had 20 chapters, we only read about three of them. It was 

near the end of my time at Colorado Tech that I realized 

we had been given what I call the dollar store version of 

a medical billing and coding program. It did not have the 

accreditation that would make us eligible for the jobs 

that we thought we could get. As part of our classes, we 

had learned about different medical and billing and 

coding certifications. Two weeks before we were set to 

graduate, one of my classmates sent a message to the 

group chat saying that our degree would only lead to a 

lower certification and would not open many job 

opportunities. The next day, our teacher confirmed that 
94

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

our classmate was correct. We would not be able to get 

the certifications that doctors and hospitals require for 

billing and coding. I couldn't believe it. I had spent 14 

months in an expensive program, and it turned out to be 

total junk. I am unable to get my GI benefits restored, 

and I will never get back the time I spent. Because the 

school was approved, I thought it was legitimate. I think 

if a school offers a program that was supposed to lead to 

a career, the school's accreditor should make sure the 

program has what is needed to prepare you for that 

career. Otherwise, Veterans will waste their precious 

time and hard-earned GI benefits just like I did. I thank 

you for your time.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Cheri, for 

your comment. We appreciate it. Alright, John, who do we 

have next?

MR. WEATHERS: Brady, next we have 

Kolin Wilkins representing themselves.

MR. ROBERTS: Good afternoon, Kolin, 

can you hear me?

MR. WILKINS: Yes, sir, I can.

MR. ROBERTS: We can hear you. If you 

want and you're comfortable, you can feel free to turn on 

your video, but we can definitely hear you. And that'sit's great if you just want to stick with that. Okay, I 
95

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

see you turning on your video.

MR. WILKINS: It should be turning on.

MR. ROBERTS: It's a black screen 

right now.

MR. WILKINS: That's strange. I put 

the video on. I'm not sure why it's notMR. ROBERTS: That's alright. We can 

hear you and that's the important thing. But welcome to 

public comment. You'll have three minutes to address the 

committee, and you'll be given a 30-second heads up and 

your time will begin whenever you're ready.

MR. WILKINS: Alrighty. So good 

afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak 

today. My name is Kolin Wilkins, and in February 2020, I 

enrolled at Vista College to pursue an associate degree 

in medical insurance coding and billing. One of the 

reasons I enrolled was that they advertised their ability 

to get students interesting externships and prestigious 

jobs. I fully bought into the school's self-promotion and 

helped to use my degree to get a job at the Department of 

Veterans Affairs to help other veterans like myself. The 

school closed in October of 2021 when I was just five 

weeks away from graduating. If I had known the school was 

having so many problems, I would have never gone in the 

first place. I did not get any value from my GI Bill 
96

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

benefits I earned from my time in the Army. When I first 

enrolled, I could tell that the school was not as cracked 

up as it should be. And still, there was a lot of other 

veterans there. And I would like- you know, I did good 

with my teachers, so I decided to see it through. Then, 

five weeks before I was set to graduate, the school 

abruptly closed. We had no warning up until the last 

moment. We were being encouraged to sign up for new 

classes. It seems like only people at the very top of 

school knew the school was going to close. I had been at 

the school for close to two years and was so close to 

finishing my degree, but all that time was just thrown in 

the trash. I was and am so frustrated because of the 

school closure. I was unable to participate in the 

externship program even though I was so close to 

finishing my degree. I have not been able to get a job in 

billing and coding. After the school's closure, I heard a 

news story that the owner of Vista College is now 

involved with another school, which just seems unfair. I 

think more should be done to protect students and 

veterans from schools that are on the brink of closing. 

Thank you for your time.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you for your 

comment as well, Kolin. We appreciate it. Alright, John, 

who do we have next?
97

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

MR. WEATHERS: Next, Brady, we have 

Michael Caraway, representing themselves.

MR. ROBERTS: Excellent. Good 

afternoon. Michael, can you hear me? Oh, I think you're 

muted right now. But we can hear you or we can see you, 

and I'm pretty sure we'll be able to hear you very 

shortly.

MR. CARAWAY: Okay. 

MR. ROBERTS: Perfect. Welcome to 

public comment. You'll have three minutes to address the 

committee. You'll be given a 30-second heads up, and your 

time begins whenever you're ready.

MR. CARAWAY: Awesome, I am ready. I 

start now?

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, yeah. Go ahead.

MR. CARAWAY: Okay. Good afternoon and

thank you for the opportunity to share a bit about the 

challenges I faced since my time as a student at Brown 

Mackie College. My name is Michael Caraway, and I have 

served in the United States Air Force for 17 years as 

both an active-duty airman and a reservist. In 2010, I 

started to look at my options for going to college, and I 

ended up choosing Brown Mackie because it was close to 

home and they promoted themselves as being military 

friendly. They seemed like a great fit for me. After a 
98

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

year of school, I was deployed overseas. When I returned, 

the information technology program I was enrolled in was 

no longer offered. Not exactly what I was expecting. I 

didn't let this deter me, and I looked at transferring to 

a community college to keep my education on track. But 

none of my credits from Brown Mackie were recognized for 

transfer. I must admit, I have my doubts about the 

education of Brown Mackie. It seemed to be too easy to 

enroll. The classes were disorganized. We never had any 

book work to do after class. The teachers didn't seem to 

have any plan for the classes. It was just disorganized 

all the way around, so I wasn't surprised to find that my 

credits were of no value. I ended up going to- going a 

different direction with my education, but I feel the 

sting of that year at Brown Mackie with the student loans 

I'm still trying to pay off and having nothing to show 

for it. I hope my story helps this committee think 

through solutions as you hear from me and other veterans 

who rely on Federal agencies to make sure schools are 

offering solid programs to a real education. Thank you 

again for your time and consideration.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you very much for 

your comment, Michael. We appreciate it.

MR. CARAWAY: Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Whenever you're ready, 
99

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

John, I think we're able to admit our next speaker.

MR. WEATHERS: Yes, Brady. Next, we 

have Shameka Galloway, representing themselves.

MR. ROBERTS: Good afternoon, Shameka, 

can you hear me?

MS. GALLOWAY: Yes, I can hear you. 

Can you hear me and see me? 

MR. ROBERTS: We can hear you and see 

you. Welcome to public comment. You'll be given three 

minutes to address the committee with a 30-second heads 

up, and your time will begin whenever you're ready.

MS. GALLOWAY: Okay. Well, good 

afternoon, Committee. Oh, can you hear me?

MR. ROBERTS: You're good to go.

MS. GALLOWAY: Yes. Hello, my name is 

Shameka Galloway. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you 

for your public service. I want to thank you for making 

higher education work better for students, especially 

students such as myself. I finished my degree from the 

University of Phoenix in 2021. You won't be too surprised 

to hear what my life was like as a single mom raising 

three children, working four jobs. Early on I had a plan 

for completing my pre-med degree. But again, juggling 

school, schools wouldn't allow you to have the 

flexibility like the University of Phoenix, you had to be 
100

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

in class. Therefore, I had to take care of my 

responsibilities, make sure that I was providing for my 

family, you know, the stability that they needed, a home, 

making sure that the utilities were taken care of. While 

taking care of those things, I had to put my education on 

the back burner, so I switched to a different program. I 

went to the Bachelor of Science in Nursing program and 

still had the same challenges, of course, because you 

needed to be physically on campus and of course having to 

work, I could not go to a class physically and unable to 

make those courses, of course, unfortunately, the story, 

my story, is not uncommon for several adults in the work 

field or in the workplace right now. Many other single 

parents, such as myself, we've shared information and 

they've talked to me about their struggles. I've mentored 

some of those parents that have children, have to work, 

and it was difficult to do both. So having the 

opportunity of such schools like the University of 

Phoenix again, schools like this make it possible for us 

to continue our education and to better ourselves while 

trying to provide for our children. And again, after I 

obtained my licensed practical nursing licensure, I knew 

I wanted to continue to go back to school. I struggled 

trying to do that while making money. I would take 

courses off and on, but I couldn't commit. Again, having 
101

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

the University of Phoenix, having that online and that 

flexibility format was perfect for me to finish my 

degree. And not only that, in 2021, I finished my 

bachelor’s in health management at the university, and I 

also went back and decided to stay in the school and earn 

my master’s degree in health administration. I am proud 

to say that I graduated on time. I graduated summa cum 

laude with my bachelor's degree. I graduated with honors 

with my master's degree even. And again, three children 

working four full time jobs, trying to keep everything 

going. I wouldn't be here today [30 seconds] Okay. I 

wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for the University of 

Phoenix. And I urge you to consider adult students like 

myself considering higher education rules and the 

regulations. I appreciate you all so much for your time. 

Thank you again.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Shameka, for 

your public comment. We appreciate it. Alright, John.

MR. WEATHERS: Brady, next we have 

William Glover, representing themselves.

MR. ROBERTS: Excellent. Good 

afternoon, William, can you hear me?

MR. GLOVER: I can. 

MR. ROBERTS: Excellent. We can hear 

you and we can see you. Welcome to public comment. You'll 
102

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

be given three minutes to address the committee with a 

30-second heads up, and your time will begin whenever 

you're ready.

MR. GLOVER: Okay. That's fantastic. 

I'll go ahead. And I've already written out a testimony. 

So, here we go. Good afternoon. My name is William 

Glover, and I'm studying nursing at Broward College in 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida. I want to thank you for the 

opportunity to speak with you today. At Broward College 

is a program in place, which is called First Day for many 

classes, which makes it so students have access to the 

required course materials on the first day of class. I 

support First Day, primarily because it has not only 

proven to save me time, but also money. I've been a 

professional firefighter and first responder for the last 

20 years. Currently, I'm working full time while going to 

nursing school. I also served in the Coast Guard prior to 

attending college. Early in my career, I paid for my EMT 

and firefighter training using the GI Bill. If I had 

access to a program like First Day when I was using the 

GI Bill to pay for college, it would have been so much 

easier. Having the ability to use the GI Bill to get my 

education was wonderful. However, it required me to spend 

hours doing paperwork, days waiting for the college to 

complete their part, and weeks to finally receive my 
103

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

reimbursement. In order to make sure I had course 

materials in time for class, I had to purchase all of 

them out of pocket. Luckily, I was working and had the 

money to do so. I know many students do not. With a 

program like First Day, I would have been given access to 

my course materials up front, and they could have easily 

used my GI Bill to pay for the course materials along 

with my tuition fees once my reimbursement came in. I 

consider myself a lifelong learner. I have completed 

programs such as an EMT, police officer, firefighter, and 

soon to be nurse. I have also taught classes and know 

what it's like to both be a student and an instructor. In 

addition to students' time, another point to consider is 

how first aid helps make sure all students have the exact 

same materials to study from. Some of my classes require 

us to work in groups, and it's so much more effective as 

a student or as an instructor if everyone is using the 

same version of the course materials that they can access 

right within the learning management system. As you 

consider this issue, I hope that you will think about 

students like me who have used financial aid or the GI 

Bill to pay for college, and how much easier having the 

option to purchase your course materials through programs 

like first aid can make the start of each term. I want to 

thank you all, each and every one of you for your time 
104

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

and for allowing me to speak. Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, William, for 

your comment. We appreciate it.

MR. GLOVER: Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: Brady, next we have 

Chyna Rose, speaking for themselves.

MR. ROBERTS: Excellent. Chyna, can 

you hear me?

MR. WEATHERS: Trying to join.

MR. ROBERTS: Are you able to hear me? 

It looks like she might be connecting to audio. Great. 

Good afternoon, Chyna, can you hear me?

MS. ROSE: Yes. Can you hear me?

MR. ROBERTS: We can. We can see you 

as well. Welcome to public comment. You'll be given three 

minutes to address the committee with a 30-second heads 

up, and your time will begin whenever you're ready.

MS. ROSE: Okay. I'll begin right now. 

Good afternoon. My name is Chyna Rose, and I'm a student 

at Bright Point Community College in Richmond, Virginia. 

I have personally experienced the frustration of taking 

classes and not having the option of inclusive access, 

and how that had a negative impact on my ability to 

succeed in the course. Before I started my studies at 

Bright Point, I went to a different school, and they did 
105

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

not offer the inclusive access program. I was using 

financial aid to help pay for my tuition and course 

materials, and I had to wait to receive my refund check 

before I could afford to purchase any of my books and 

supplies. For me, this was very frustrating because my 

instructors didn't think about the fact that some 

students would not be able to have their course materials 

right away, and just went ahead and set up assignments 

that were due the first couple of weeks of class. For 

those students who had received the refund, that was, of 

course, great, but for those who hadn't, you were just 

kind of out of luck. So, it really wasn't- it was really 

easy to fall behind and lose momentum in the course. When 

I transferred to Bright Point, I realized how the 

inclusive access program there worked, and it was such a 

relief because it made the process of getting started on

the course so much quicker and easier. I feel like it's 

so much more streamlined at Bright Point because they

give me all of my course materials before my classes 

start, build my account, and then my financial aid is 

applied without me having to wait for a check. This 

program makes my life a lot easier, and it's a lot more 

convenient and less stressful for me to just know I will 

have the materials I need to be successful in the class 

right away, and most importantly, it allows me to stay on 
106

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

track with my assignments so I won't fall behind. I hope 

you will consider keeping these programs in place so 

students like me on financial aid can keep getting their 

course materials right away. Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Chyna, for 

your comment. We appreciate it.

MS. ROSE: Absolutely. Have a great 

day. 

MR. ROBERTS: You too. Okay, John who 

is our next speaker.

MR. WEATHERS: Brady, yeah, next you 

have Kristen Folsom, speaking for themselves.

MR. ROBERTS: Hello, Kristen, can you 

hear me? I can see you. You just got to enable audio it 

looks like. While she works on that, John, would you like 

to admit our next speaker and then maybe message her to 

help work on that?

MR. WEATHERS: Yes, Brady. Next, we 

have Derek James, speaking for himself.

MR. ROBERTS: Excellent. Good 

afternoon, Derek, can you hear me?

MR. JAMES: Yeah, can you hear me?

MR. ROBERTS: We can. We can see you

as well. Welcome to public comment. You have three 

minutes to address the committee, and you'll be given a 
107

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

30-second heads up, and your time will begin whenever 

you're ready.

MR. JAMES: Okay, great. Good 

afternoon. My name is Derek James, and I'm a student at 

Wilbur Wright Community College in Chicago, Illinois. My 

comment is in support of the Department's proposed change 

to eliminate automatic textbook billing for books and 

supplies without student authorization. I also support 

the requirement that institutions disclose the price of 

these course materials to students before asking for 

their authorization. I concur with the Department's goals 

of transparency and student choice. I decided to go back 

to college after having been out of higher education for 

more than a decade. I initially attended Full Sail 

University right out of high school, where I had a very 

bad experience. I dropped out after a semester when I 

decided that particular school was not a good investment 

for me. Acquiring textbooks and trying to understand what 

to get or don't get, with an access code has been one of 

the most frustrating things about returning to college. 

Every semester, I've had to buy an access code to get the 

required course materials because they're bundled with 

the online platform, where I also submit my homework 

assignments. This semester has required access codes from 

Cengage and Pearson. My professor actually told me to not 
108

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

get the Pearson book through the campus bookstore, 

because it was considerably more expensive than getting 

it from the publisher. When I looked into this, the 

marked-up price from the bookstore was $100 versus $80 on 

the Pearson website. So, after discovering this was the 

case for Pearson, I looked into the bookstore price for 

the Cengage materials and compared them to the publisher 

website. The Cengage website provided me with two access 

code options. One was to pay $114 to rent the digital 

book for four months, compared to $148 through the 

bookstore, or two, pay $130 to purchase Cengage 

Unlimited, a subscription to the publisher's repository 

of books, which was $163 through the bookstore. My 

professor did not have a clear answer on which Cengage 

product I should purchase. I ultimately rented the 

digital book because it was cheaper. Frustrated with the 

bookstore- frustrated that the bookstore would mark up 

the price of these materials, and I'm forced to buy an 

access code to submit my homework, it leaves students 

with little choice. My experience with the bookstore and 

the publishers gives me little confidence that they are 

looking out for my best interest. This is why I'm 

concerned about publisher sales models that automatically 

bill these materials to the student’s tuition bill. A 

student should have to authorize an institution to charge 
109

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

them. Done?

MR. ROBERTS: No, sorry, go ahead. 

That's our next speaker. Please continue.

MR. JAMES: Got it, okay, sorry. A 

student should have to authorize an institution to charge 

them for books and supplies. It's our money, and we 

should get to choose how we spend it. I shouldn't be 

forced to buy textbooks [30 seconds] Okay. I shouldn't be 

forced to buy a textbook at a price my institution is 

determined is affordable to me, especially when some 

institutions seek to maximize revenue for themselves in 

these arrangements. What is affordable to me is not the 

same as what's affordable to another student. The only 

way to make this fair is to let us students decide for 

ourselves and make textbook companies compete for our 

business.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you very much, 

Derek. We appreciate your comment.

MR. JAMES: Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: Brady, we have Kristen 

already ready to go; Kristen Folsom speaking for herself.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. Good afternoon, 

Kristen, can you hear us?

MS. FOLSOM: Yes, I can hear you this 

time. Thanks.
110

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

MR. ROBERTS: Excellent. Excellent. 

Welcome. Glad we figured that out. You'll have three 

minutes to address the committee with a 30-second heads 

up, and your time will begin whenever you're ready.

MS. FOLSOM: Okay, now? 

MR. ROBERTS: Go ahead.

MS. FOLSOM: Okay. Alright. Good 

afternoon. My name is Kristen Folsom, and I'm speaking on 

behalf of people like myself who have a student loan for 

themselves as well as a Parent PLUS Loan. And I 

understand that this is a segment of the population 

that's tentatively being considered for hardship relief. 

And I would like to say really quickly, I don't 

understand this dissecting of what hardship is for 

people. I think it's a hardship for all of us. And we're, 

for most of us, we're having a hard time. We're really in 

a precarious predicament. As for myself, I got an email 

from MOHELA over the weekend, and they reminded me that 

my payment is due. It was due in January, and I do plan 

to pay the payment. I know I owe it, but I just don't 

have the money. My payment is $1,373. This is on an 

Income Driven Repayment Plan. This is for my student loan 

as well as the Parent PLUS Loan. And like I say, I do 

plan to pay it. I work a full-time job and I just cannot 

pay it at this time. And I'm currently looking for a 
111

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

part-time job or a second job just so I can pay this 

payment. And, during the payment pause that we had, what 

I did with the extra money that I had was help my 

daughter, who had graduated from college and went to work 

for AmeriCorps, and I helped her to stand on her feet and 

to become self-sufficient. And then after that last year, 

I had a son who graduated from high school. 

Unfortunately, I won't be able to send him to college. 

And I have another son who is suffering from some 

disabilities. So really, at this point, I'm taking care 

of three adults, and trying to help them sustain 

themselves. During the payment pause, the money that I 

saved that I was able to help my daughter with became now 

$1,300, is about the same that I pay in inflated cost for 

everything, for housing, for food, for groceries or gas 

and everything. So, it's really no extra money that we 

have after this forbearance. I'd like to say that I am 

trying at this point, I do want to make the payment. I 

know I owe the loan, but I want to be education Secretary 

to consider seriously, in helping people like myself who 

have a payment- who have payments for their own loans and 

also a Parent PLUS payment, and in fact, who are all 

already involved- enrolled in Income Driven Repayment 

Plans. And that's me. Several other options that I've 

considered, I've considered, selling my property. I've 
112

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

considered selling my car. I've considered taking the 

whole family off of medical insurance. And I've also 

actually considered trying to find a sugar daddy just to 

pay the student loan. So, I'm asking the Secretary and 

the Education Department to please consider us seriously. 

Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Kristen, for 

your comment. We appreciate it. I believe we have time 

for one final speaker. We'll go a minute or two over, but 

I think that's okay. Who are we hearing from next?

MR. WEATHERS: Brady, our final 

speaker will be Dr. Elizabeth Spica.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm not sure. You might 

have admitted two folks, in which case we'll hear from 

both. Dr. Spica, we'll hear from you first. Welcome. 

You'll have three minutes for public comment with a 30-

second heads up, and we will begin your time whenever 

you're ready.

DR. SPICA: Alright. Thank you for 

hanging on to listen to me after time. My name is 

Elizabeth Spica, and I hold a PhD in higher education 

administration from the University of Tennessee. I'm 

speaking today in support of the proposed changes that 

would effectively eliminate the practice of automatic 

billing for books and supplies. Like the committee, I'm 
113

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

invested in rules that support students, and the research 

I've done suggests that participation in an inclusive 

access program provides no significant improvements for 

students in terms of academic outcomes. I'm here today to 

make you aware of my study and also walk you through the 

results. The study was published in October 2021 in the 

peer-reviewed Community College Journal of Research and 

Practice. For this study, I partnered with the Tennessee 

Board of Regents to examine the impacts of inclusive 

access for Tennessee Community College students. The 

study compared DFW rates, which is basically a count of 

students that either earned a D, F, incomplete, or 

withdrew from the course altogether, versus those 

students who passed with an A through C grade, which 

presumably means they succeeded. We took DFW rates for a 

fall inclusive access pilot semester, which was 141 

courses across all of Tennessee's 13 community colleges, 

and then compared them to two previous fall semesters in 

which those same courses were taught. The results showed 

no significant improvements or declines between the 

inclusive access pilot semester and those two previous 

fall semesters. Because the idea of inclusive access is 

intended to level the playing field, so to speak, I also 

broke down these results to look at race and ethnicity, 

namely white versus nonwhite, Pell versus non-Pell 
114

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

recipients, and age, learners over 25 and under 25. And 

there were also no significant improvements or declines 

for any of those populations which are of specific 

concern, not only for Tennessee, but I think for all of 

us across the nation. So, with regard to academic 

outcomes, the study produced no evidence to support 

inclusive access participation over previous methods. And 

to be clear, I am not against inclusive access per se, 

but an absence of these measurable significant 

improvements, I believe the program should be at best an 

opt-in model and but one of the many course material 

purchase options available for students. I also think 

that the Department's concerns about a lack of disclosure 

and transparency are quite founded. The rules, as they 

stand, in my opinion, have enabled agreements that look 

suspiciously like exclusive dealing arrangements. And 

when I think about it from the perspective of market 

competition, I'm concerned that automatic billing will 

soon function no differently than any of the streaming 

services that we have at home. We're all paying more now 

than ever before for those, but it didn't start that way 

when we first made the switch from cable to streaming. 

Except the cost here, and the consequences are much more 

extreme because these costs are going to contribute to 

our now almost $2 trillion of student loan debt. And as 
115

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

Adam Smith famously wrote, to widen the market and to 

narrow the competition is always the interest of the 

dealers. It is not in the interest of the students. Thank 

you for your time.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Dr. Spica, 

for your comment. Unfortunately, we are overtime, so that 

will be our last speaker for today. Thank you for all the 

conversation and the dialog today on cash management. We 

will pick things up tomorrow at 10 a.m. eastern, and 

until then, enjoy the rest of your afternoon and evening. 

Thank you, all.

 
116

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

Zoom Chat Transcript

Program Integrity and Institutional Quality- Session 2, Day 1, Afternoon, February 5, 2024

*Chat was copied as presented, as a result minor typos or grammatical errors may be present.

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Instit to Everyone:

Quick Google search suggested "closure fee" might be more commonly accepted 

nomenclature. I'm outside of my wheelhouse here but would just suggest to whatever extent 

possible should peg to something already defined by the CFPB - that should help providers be clear

on compliance expectations.

From A, Sophie Laing, Legal Aid to Everyone:

Supportive of the Department's changes here- students may be banking for the first time in 

college, and shouldn't be hit with extra junk fees and costs, especially when banking somewhere 

because of the advice/representations made by their institution

From (A) Zack Goodwin (he/him), Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Reacted to "Supportive of the De..." with ���

From P, John Ware - State Regulator to Everyone:

Some banks also call them "account inactivity fees".

From A, Magin Sanchez, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

Reacted to "Supportive of the De..." with ���

From (A) Zack Goodwin (he/him), Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Proposed minor text change: A title IV, HEA credit balance occurs whenever the amount of 

title IV, HEA program funds [in combination with] any other Federal or non-Federal funds, including 

but not limited to scholarships, grants, or private loans....

From (A) Zack Goodwin (he/him), Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Many institutions will use the allowance for books, supplies and equipment from the cost 

of attendance.

From P Jamie Studley, Institutional Accreditors to Everyone:

could the language be reposted?

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Reacted to "could the language b..." with ���

From (A) - Dom Chase - Business Officers to Everyone:

I believe this too is connected to a previous temperature check.

From A, Scott Dolan, Private Nonprofit IHEs to Everyone:

Reacted to "I believe this too i..." with ���

From (A) Zack Goodwin (he/him), Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:
117

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

I think we spoke earlier about what needed to be authorized, not so much the actual 

methods of acquiring authorization.

From P, Jillian Klein, Proprietary Instit to Everyone:

I agree with Barmak and Sophie that the approach should mirror the most favorable 

approach available to students at the time ED is working with them.

From A, Magin Sanchez, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

+1 to Sophie, Barmak, and Jillian’s point regarding using SAVE/the most favorable approach 

rather than standard IDR or another strict approaches. No student actively desires to be in this 

horrible position, and strictness only worsens an already horrible situation for all involved.

From A, Magin Sanchez, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

Reacted to "I agree with Barmak ..." with ���

From (A) Zack Goodwin (he/him), Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to Sophie, Barmak..." with ��

From A, Emmett Blaney, Students/Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to Sophie, Barmak..." with ���

From A-Alyssa Dobson, 4Yr. Public to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to Sophie, Barmak..." with ���

From P. Jo Blondin, Community Colleges to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to Sophie, Barm..." with ���

From Carolyn Fast to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to Sophie, Barmak..." with ���

From P., Diana Hooley, State Attorneys General to Everyone:

I agree that students should be offered the most favorable approach to repayment to 

better ensure students aren't further burdened or later prevented from accessing higher education 

due to ineligibility.

From P Erika Linden, Private Nonprofit to Everyone:

Reacted to "I agree that student..." with ���

From Carolyn Fast to Everyone:

Reacted to "I agree that student..." with ���

From A, Emmett Blaney, Students/Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 to considering the most affordable option possible for repayment.

From (A) Zack Goodwin (he/him), Financial Aid Administrators to Everyone:

Reacted to "I agree that student..." with ���
118

Negotiated Rulemaking Program Integrity and 

Institutional Quality – 2/5/24

From A, Magin Sanchez, Civil Rights/Consumer to Everyone:

Reacted to "I agree that student..." with ���

From (P) Barmak Nassirian, Veterans & Mil. Students to Everyone:

My colleague, Ashlynne, will sit in for us during the public comment period

From P Jamie Studley, Institutional Accreditors to Everyone:

Need to step off. I believe the alternate will join for conclusion.