Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

1

 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

AFFORDABILITY AND STUDENT LOANS COMMITTEE

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING SESSION 1, DAY 4, MORNING

OCTOBER 7, 2021

On the 7th day of October, 2021, the

following meeting was held virtually from 10:00 a.m. to

12:00 p.m., before Jamie Young, Shorthand Reporter in

the state of New Jersey. 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

2 

P R O C E E D I N G S 

 MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, everyone, and 

welcome to day four of week one of Negotiated Rulemaking on 

Affordability and Student Loans. Thank you as always to the 

Committee and members of our watching public for all their hard 

work and dedication on these matters.

 I want to kick us off today with a brief roll 

call, go over the agenda, and then a few announcements. So, when 

I say your constituency group, please unmute, make sure your 

camera is on and say here. Accrediting agencies.

 MS. PERFETTI: Good morning. Heather 

Perfetti.

 MR. ROBERTS: Heather. Dependent students? I 

will reintroduce them when they get on. Federal Family Education 

Loan Lenders and/or Guarantee Agencies?

 MS. O'CONNELL: Good morning. Jaye O'Connell.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning. Financial Aid 

Administrators at Postsecondary Institutions.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Good morning. Daniel 

Barkowitz here.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, Daniel. Fouryear Public Institutions of Higher Education.

MS. FELDMAN: Good morning, Rachelle 

Feldman.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, Rachelle. 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

3 

Independent Students?

MS. MARTIN: Good morning. Michaela.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, Michaela. 

Individuals with Disabilities or groups representing them?

MS. LILLY: Hi. I'm Bethany Lilly.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, Bethany. 

Alright. Legal Assistance Organizations that Represents Students 

and/or Borrowers?

MS. YU: Good morning. Persis Yu.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, Persis. Minority 

Serving Institutions?

MS. GONZALEZ: Good morning. Noelia 

Gonzalez.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, Noelia. Private 

Nonprofit Institutions of Higher Education?

MS. SABOUNEH: Good morning, everyone. This 

is Misty Sabouneh.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, Misty. 

Proprietary Institutions?

MS. BARRY: Good morning. Jessica Barry.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, Jessica. State 

Attorneys General?

MR. SANDERS: Good morning. Joe Sanders.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, Joe. State 

Higher Education Executive Officers, State Authorizing --
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

4 

Authorizing Agencies and/or State Regulators of Institutions of 

Higher Education and/or Loans Services?

MR. TANBERG: Good morning. David Tanberg.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, David. Student 

Loan Borrowers?

MS. O'BRYAN-LOSEE: Good morning. It's Jeri.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, Jeri. Two-year 

Public Institutions of Higher Education?

MR. AYALA: Good morning. Bobby Ayala.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, Bobby. U.S. 

Military Service Members and Veterans or groups representing 

them?

MR. HAUSCHILD: Good morning. Justin 

Hauschild.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, Justin. And last 

but not the least, our Department of Education negotiators.

MS. HONG: Good morning, Jennifer Hong. 

Welcome back, everyone.

MR. ROBERTS: Anyone from OGC? I'm not 

seeing anyone. Did I forget anyone? Alright. Great. So, before 

we get into picking up our conversation on PSLF sub Article 4 I 

believe Kayla has a few brief announcements.

MS. MACK: Good morning, everyone. I want to 

get your committee into the important issues and work before you 

as soon as possible. So, I promise to be brief. First, I do want 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

5 

to reply to everyone's utilization of the group chat. The 

questions and suggestions that you all have been putting in 

there have been very insightful and (inaudible).

MR. TANBERG: You muted yourself.

MS. MACK: Yeah. There we go. How much of 

that did you hear?

MR. BARKOWITZ: Insightful, we heard 

insightful.

MS. MACK: You heard insightful and then I 

just mic dropped and was gonna leave it at that. No, the 

suggestions have been insightful so I want to encourage you to 

continue to utilize the chat box. That has exceeded our 

expectations in terms of a virtual tool for our purposes.

I also want to comment on those of you who 

have been creative and efficient enough to put Persis plus one 

Joe, plus one. That has helped to emphasize point, show support, 

but cut down on our usage of time and duplicitous commentaries. 

So, keep up the good work there.

We did note that there were several comments 

in the chat yesterday asking for transcripts of the public 

comments. I'm happy to report -- report, in fact, that there are 

going to be transcripts made of those public comments. They 

should be available two, maybe three weeks after this session 

and then will be shared out to you all as a resource.

And then last but not the least, I also 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

6 

wanted to address the concerns raised around process and 

protocols yesterday by one of your fellow committee members 

after the committee received information from Mr. Foss 

So, we've now had an opportunity to discuss 

this as a facilitation group. What we wanted to report back to 

you that in our agency’s experience with various negotiated 

rulemakings. It is a common practice for the hosting department 

to present operational staffs for the purpose of sharing 

information. And this has been even a more routine practice, 

when that said staff has expertise or perspective to provide on 

matters that are occuring outside of the negotiations in real 

time.

And so, this is done in a number of 

instances and for a number of reasons, not the least of which to 

provide information to the committee, to ensure trust with the 

committee, and to show respect for the work of the committee. 

So, I'm hopeful that that addresses your concerns and we can 

continue to move forward in a productive manner.

Dixie, I see your hand.

MS. SAMANIEGO: Yeah. So, moving forward, I 

recommend that the facilitation group add that into the 

organizational protocols because as it stands, it wasn't. And 

so, that's why I raised that concern. And so, for me, when I 

read the organization protocols, it did violate it, that 

specific section.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

7 

And so, my recommendation going forward is 

that the facilitation team have that in the organizational 

protocols so that further confusion can be avoided. Thank you.

MS. MACK: Okay. Thank you, Dixie. Daniel?

MR. BARKOWITZ: I request a caucus for a 

second with -- it won't be long -- but with the student groups, 

legal aid, as well as four-year public and four-year private 

institutions and two yearpublic. I just want to run -- I want to 

have a conversation in regard to this for a moment.

MS. MACK: Okay. Tech, we need to create a 

breakout space. So, Daniel, I want you to be specific a little 

bit slower with who specifically we should move in there because 

I do want to make sure that we get all of the right folks in 

there. And are you asking that both the primary and the 

alternate for each of these groups be moved to that breakout 

space?

MR. BARKOWITZ: Please. So, actually, I'll 

specific. I'd like to caucus for a moment with dependent 

students.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Hang on here. It will 

be helpful to have their name because that's what shows up 

first.

MS. MACK: I'll do that.

MS. CINDY: Okay.

MS. MACK: Dependent students are Dixie.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

8 

MS. JEFFRIES: Hang on a second. Okay, I got 

– 

MS. MACK: (Inaudible).

MS. JEFFRIES: I have Dixie.

MS. MACK: Greg Norwood.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Independent students.

MS. JEFFRIES: I have Greg Norwood.

MS. MACK: Independent students are Michaela 

Martin and Stanley Andrisse.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Legal aid.

MS. JEFFRIES: Martin -- hang on.

MS. BARKOWITZ: Oh, sorry.

MS. JEFFRIES: You said Stan?

MS. MACK: Yes, Stanley Andrisse.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. I have Stanley.

MS. MACK: Next would be legal assistance. I 

believe that's Persis -- Persis Yu and Joshua Rovenger.

MS. JEFFRIES: I have Persis and I have the 

-- yeah, Josh, right?

MS. MACK: Yup. Then we -- then we need to 

include financial aid, which will be Daniel -- Daniel Barkowitz 

and Alyssa Dobson.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alyssa and Daniel.

MS. MACK: And then please, Daniel, any 

other constituency group?
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

9 

MR. BARKOWITZ: I would also like to invite 

two-year public and four-year public.

MS. MACK: Okay. For four-year public, we 

have Marjorie Dorime-Williams and Rachelle – 

MS. JEFFRIES : Hang on. Hang on. I'm sorry 

– 

MS. FELDMAN: Marjorie is not on right now 

so won't see her in the list.

MS. JEFFRIES: She's not.

MS. MACK: That's true. So then we have 

Rachelle Feldman (inaudible).

MS. CINDY: Rachelle Feldman.

MS. O'BRYAN-LOSEE: Daniel, do you want all 

student borrowers?

MR. BARKOWITZ: Oh, yes. Thank you, Jeri. 

Yes. I did not – 

MS. O'BRYAN-LOSEE: (Inaudible), please.

MR. BARKOWITZ: I did not mean to ignore 

you. So, yes, thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: So, we need Jeri in there?

MR. BARKOWITZ: Jeri in there as well. Thank 

you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MS. MACK: And also Jennifer -- Jennifer 

Cardenas.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

10

MR. BARKOWITZ: And then the last group is 

two-year public.

MS. MACK: Two year, yes. So, we have Bobby.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MS. MACK: And Christina 

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MS. MACK: We will open up that breakout 

room. That breakout room will not be live streamed. We will 

pause the main table session, okay? And then, Daniel, how soon 

could FMCS check in with your group? Give me a rough estimate.

MR. BARKOWITZ: I think we need no more than 

10 minutes.

MS. MACK: Okay. In 10 minutes, we will 

check in with you unless we hear from you soon.

MR. BARKOWITZ: And we may -- may exit 

sooner, correct.

MS. MARTIN: Do we include Noelia?

MR. BARKOWITZ: I am open to that, sure.

MS. MACK: Okay. Then we're including 

minority serving institutions by way of Noelia Gonzalez.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay.

MS. JEFFRIES: I am going to do -- since 

this is the first major breakout room that has taken place, I am 

going to run down the first names of the people that will be in 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

11

that room. I have Alyssa, Bobby, Christina , Daniel, Dixie, 

Greg, Jennifer from student loan borrowers as opposed to

Department of Ed, Jeri, Josh, Michaela, Noelia, Persis, Rachelle

and Stanley. Was that correct? Okay. I will go ahead and open 

your room.

MS. O'BRYAN-LOSEE: We need Jennifer from my 

group as well, my alternate.

MS. JEFFRIES: What is Jennifer's last name?

MS. MACK: Cardenas. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Jennifer, I have Jennifer 

from Student Loan Borrowers, is that correct? She is already in 

the room.

MR. ROBERTS: So, open those up whenever 

you're ready, Cindy, and that – 

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. I'm going to open it 

now.

(In Caucus)

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. Welcome back everyone 

and thank you for your patience. Before we pick back up with Sub 

article 4 with PSLF, I wanted to give the floor over to Daniel 

for a brief comment.

MR. BARKOWITZ: Thank you so much, Brady, 

and thank you to the committee and to the public for your 

patience and allowing us some time to caucus with a very 

productive conversation.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

12

I don't believe we show a solution yet but I 

just wanted to, again, express the appreciation for the time and 

we will continue with these productive conversations. So, thank 

you for your patience and thank you to the group that met and 

thank you to the group that did not meet. It was not an 

intentional slight, so thank you for the opportunity to take 

some time and just review where we were.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. Thank you. So with 

that, I'm going to turn it over to Jennifer and Vanessa to pick 

back right off with improving PSLF application process. We got 

partially through the discussion at the conclusion of yesterday. 

And so, I'd like to turn it over to Jennifer and then welcome 

any new comments or questions.

MS. HONG: Okay. Thank you, Brady. So, just 

as a reminder to everyone, we are still on issue paper number 4, 

improving PSLF application process. We're on the very last 

subtopic on that issue, if I'm not mistaken, and that is the 

PSLF reconsideration process.

Right, thank you Aaron for putting that up. 

If you can just go to page 6, that is where we have some 

proposed language on a PSLF reconsideration process. Basically, 

we want to codify a formal reconsideration process in regulation 

that will allow borrowers to request an appeal of their 

application when they believe they have been wrongfully denied 

You know, a reconsideration process would
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

13

include all the elements you see here, a basis for which 

reconsideration can be requested, reasonable timeframes and 

provision for providing additional information as well. Please 

keep in mind, again, on the operational side, FSA, is making 

improvements.

So, there are plenty of opportunities for 

borrowers to request that their applications get looked at, if 

they feel like they had been denied, an error or if there were 

errors in how the payments were counted, et cetera in light of 

the new announcement yesterday. And I will leave that open for 

discussion.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I'm seeing Bethany's 

hand, then Persis. Bethany, please.

MS. LILLY: So, this maybe more of a 

question for Brian than for you Jen but “reasonably attainable” 

or “currently in the Secretary's possession”, would that include 

things that being held by servicers that the department 

oversees? Because, that's, for instance, an individual I know 

had both Great Lakes and fed loan as a servicer.

Fed loan isn't counting the Great Lakes 

loans and that's the kind of thing that I would like this 

process to take a look at and I would just -- I'm a little bit 

worried if under the current language that it wouldn't 

incorporate things that the servicers have.

I strongly support the idea of the 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

14

reconsideration process and all that just like I want it to 

work as well for students as we can get it to work.

MR. SIEGEL: I'll respond, this is Brian. 

Those documents would be considered “reasonably obtainable” by 

the department.

MS. LILLY: Okay, thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Thanks Bethany. Persis, 

please.

MS. YU: Thank you. Yes, I want to both 

reiterate, I appreciate Brian's -- and that was also my concern 

as well. The other -- the other concern I have is about the 

effective date for folks who have had denials in the past and --

in these 90 days, from the date that the -- that these regs take 

effect. That doesn't seem like a lot of time, sorry, Jen, you 

looked like you're going to comment to that.

So, I guess my concern is that 90 days, from 

the date when these regulations go into effect which maybe is, 

probably going to be what, July 2023, doesn't feel like a lot of 

time for folks to know this very far in advance date of when 

these regulations will change.

So, I would just either eliminate the time 

period and allow folks who had past denials before these 

regulations took effect to have any amount of time to do so or -

- or at least a longer time period.

MS. HONG: Thank you, Persis and just --
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

15

just real quickly, you know, that's why I mentioned all the 

other things have the same story. This is really just to codify 

regulation but we -- we are looking into issues that the 

borrowers are having in terms of errors and payment counting and 

any other kind of reasons that their application may have been 

denied, so -- so yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you and before I 

recognize our next speaker, I just want to announce that 

Marjorie has rejoined the table as primary negotiator for FourYear Public Institutions of Higher Ed. So with that, Marjorie, 

please.

MS. DORIME-WILLIAMS: Thank you. I just had 

a clarifying question and it's a little bit for the dumb but it 

says that if the Secretary grants some or all of the borrower's 

request for reconsideration and so I just -- I don't understand 

how some of the reconsideration or some of the requests would be 

reconsidered. Could you just maybe clarify what exactly that 

means or the intent of that statement?

MR. ROBERTS: Jen or Brian, any immediate 

response?

MS. HONG: Yeah, I mean I don't have, you 

know, maybe a concrete example but, you know, that's pretty 

standard regulatory language. So that, you know, just to ensure 

the Secretary has the maximum flexibility to grant,you know, a 

decision based on information provided, whether it's for 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

16

everything that the borrower requested or if the borrower 

requested several items and you need some maybe not be relevant 

or may not apply. So, that's to maintain encompass, that 

language to maintain encompass in those scenarios.

MR. ROBERTS: Thanks. Justin?

MR. HAUSCHILD: Yeah, thanks so much. I just 

have a question for the department. Jennifer, I think we just 

mentioned that this reconsideration process is in addition to or 

were somewhat in coordination with the proposed review process 

that FSA has are already set to conduct.

And this was a little bit to my question the 

other day for Ian but I'm trying to get a better sense of what 

exactly is being done through emergency authority and what needs 

additional attention here from a regulatory perspective. And so 

is there -- is there a limit to the timeline for FSA to conduct 

these retroactive reviews and presumably take action, I would 

imagine that the role, if there are errors?

And if we're taking action, it seems to me, 

you know, I just wondered how much of that action is being 

authorized under emergency authority and how much needs to be 

considered here? Does that make sense?

MS. HONG: That does make sense, Justin, and

I think the idea is to have like a streamlined transition, if 

we're able to effectuate these regulations to make some of the 

initiatives that we're providing through executive action more 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

17

permanent but again that all is contingent on what we end up 

with here.

There are some of the waivers for example, 

just off the top of my head, for FFEL borrowers, you know, 

that's a hard stop that we wouldn't be able to waive beyond 

October 31st, 2022. And that's why we've included the 

notification for FFEL borrowers in the regulations for those 

borrowers that do not avail themselves of the temporary waiver 

before October 31st, 2022.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. Thank you. And before I 

recognize Persis, I just want to recognize Christina who's taken 

a seat at the table for Two-Year Public Institutions. So with 

that, Persis, please.

MS. YU: Thank you. And similarly to 

Justin's point about retroactivity and automation, I'm thinking 

as we are, especially in the next issue paper discussing the 

qualifying employers, that there might actually be folks when we 

change the regulations who do not currently qualify and would 

not qualify under the waiver process.

And so, will the department -- when these 

regulations go into place, do the same kind of retroactive 

review of everyone who has been denied, so that we can make sure 

that those folks are captured as well?

I think -- I think it's very important just 

for all our regulations to think about having how these apply 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

18

retroactively to a lot of folks who had been doing public 

service but haven't necessarily been captured under a process 

and figuring out a way to both automate these as much as humanly

possibly and then ensure that these borrowers get relief.

MR. ROBERTS: Thanks Persis. I'm noticing in 

the chat there's a question. Would anyone care to read that out 

loud just for the -- the live stream?

MR. BARKOWITZ: I can, I can, it's my 

question.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

MR. BARKOWITZ: So, my question is, what 

happens to borrowers between October 31, '22, when the temporary 

waivers expired and July 1, '23, when presumably these regs 

would be implemented? And there's a second piece which is, could 

this section be subject to early implementation or you know is 

there some way to allow for new -- no recission of benefits 

during that period?

MS. HONG: Yea, the short answer is yes, 

Daniel. We could have the options to really implement these 

regulations.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. Thank you and I 

appreciate your comment. Oh, I'm sorry did I interrupt someone?

MR. TANDBERG: Is that intent, Jennifer?

MS. HONG: Yeah, I mean I think that intent 

is to, you know, head off any kind of disruption for -- with the 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

19

borrowers, for the department to the extent that we can do that 

within the confines of the law and statute and regulation.

MR. ROBERTS: Great and I appreciate Persis' 

comment because it might be a nice segue into our next 

subarticle. But before we get there, I'm not seeing any new 

hands. I was wondering, Aaron, if you could unshare the document 

briefly and members just going to take, you guess it folks, a 

temperature check for a tentative agreement. Oh no, Jennifer, 

please.

MS. HONG: Thanks Brady. I just wanted to go 

back. I don't -- I don't recall yesterday if we took a 

temperature check on the FFEL lender notification issue, if not, 

we probably can do that and then take a temperature check on 

this as well.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh great, okay.

MS. HONG: We did finish the discussion, so.

MR. ROBERTS: I see. Do you want to -- let's 

finish the temperature check for TA on this and then we'll just 

briefly return to that document. So, Aaron, if you don't mind 

queuing that up, if people want to review it one last time?

So for this, it is a red line edit. So, we 

are asking for a temperature check on tentative agreement for 

the department's text modifications. So, can I see thumbs? Folks 

are getting them up there.

Thank you, everyone. I'm not seeing any 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

20

thumbs down. If I missed someone, please call it out.

Great. Alright, Jennifer, I'm going to turn 

it back over to you just to reintroduce the FFEL piece, if you 

want to reshare that text.

MS. HONG: Sure. This is the notification 

piece and I think Jaye had made a point about the placement of 

it which we said that we would revisit but it's on the last page 

of the document. But in brief, it's just ensuring that FFEL --

the FFEL community notifies borrowers of the PSLF program and 

the potential eligibility for it.

And I said the last page, Aaron, I think 

it's -- it's the last page that has a mandatory -- wait right 

there maybe. Yes, there we go, a reminder.

MR. ROBERTS: Any new discussion on this or 

do you guys want to move right into a check on thumbs? Yes, Joe, 

please.

MR. SANDERS: I just want to be clear, 

before we do the temperature check. So, after the emergency 

period, which ends next October, the borrower in FEEL loan has 

no opportunity to qualify for PSLF, is that right?

MS. HONG: That's correct. In other words, 

we want them to give them a year or two to consolidate and make 

whatever decisions they need to make, so that they can avail 

themselves of this opportunity.

MR. SANDERS: Thanks and the year is great. 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

21

I think that what you guys have done here is awesome. I don't 

think anybody who is still in FFEL that year, I don't think this 

is enough. I think FFEL borrowers need to be given more 

information, more support on -- on this issue.

MR. ROBERTS: Thanks Joe. Jaye?

Or I can turn it, I'm sorry, I just saw 

Jennifer's hand. Do you mind if Jennifer, just a brief response?

MS O'CONNELL: That's fine.

MS. HONG: Just real quickly, we -- remember 

we're waiving certain provisions to make that possible for FFEL

borrowers under the emergency authorization executive action. We 

-- we don't otherwise have that authority to waive it for FFEL

borrowers after October 31st as you mentioned (phonetic).

MR. SANDERS: Yeah and I'm not suggesting...

MS. HONG: On the systems (phonetic) there.

MR. SANDERS: Sorry. Sorry to butt in.

MS. HONG: No, no, no.

MR. SANDERS: I'm not suggesting that you 

can waive it. I'm just saying that what we've seen in the State 

AG work on servicers what we've seen is the borrowers don't get 

good information that the -- that a small written disclosure is 

not going to be enough to actually inform somebody about what 

they need to do or to get their attention.

And so the servicers need to be providing 

borrowers with better information. I'm just saying that this 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

22

disclosure on the -- on an annual statement is not going to do 

it as a practical matter. 

And so that borrowers need to be, you know, 

whether it's through servicers or through some other means, they 

need to be given more information about, hey, you're in the 

(phonetic) loan, if you want to do public service loan

forgiveness. These are the requirements. When we have looked at 

this, the servicers aren't providing adequate information on a 

program like PSLF.

MR. ROBERTS: Thanks Joe and just as a 

reminder, if folks have specific ask or proposed language, just 

be sure to put them in the chat, just so we can preserve a 

record for the transcript.

MS. HONG: I was just -- I was just going to 

say the same thing, Brady. So, Joe, if you have anything to give 

this language more body related to any specific things that 

you've seen in your role, please do provide it.

MR. SANDERS: Yeah, thank you. I -- I will 

need to caucus with other State AGs who are not here but I will 

absolutely highlight this provision to them and we can discuss 

and see if there's proposals. 

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate that. 

I think now we're ready to move Jaye. Sorry about the delay.

MS O'CONNELL: So, this maybe my 

misunderstanding, so FFEL can consolidate into DL to access PSLF 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

23

but -- and that continues beyond the emergency period. However, 

the payment and deferment provisions that we spoke about 

yesterday, the payment counting, the deferment provisions, those 

are the elements you're saying that would not apply to FFEL

after the emergency period. They restart the clock as they do 

today. Is that accurate?

MS. HONG: If I'm -- if I'm hearing you 

correctly, Jaye, so there's like two -- so the issue on 

restarting the clock is separate and apart from the temporary 

provisions. So by restarting the clock or stopping the restart 

of the clock on consolidation and putting that into regulation 

permanently, those payments would count, prospectively

(phonetic) with that.

Does that make sense? So if we put that in 

regulation, then that resolves that issue or -- for any 

borrowers whether they have direct loans or outstanding FFEL

loans that once they consolidate, that does not restart the 

clock for their payment counting. So, we're trying to resolve 

that going forward.

MS O'CONNELL: Okay. I think what I'm 

confused about is saying that FFEL borrowers after the emergency 

period don't have any access to PSLF but they do through 

consolidation.

MS. HONG: That's right, yes.

MS O'CONNELL: Okay.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

24

MS. HONG: You are correct, yes.

MS O'CONNELL: Which is how it always worked

and how we always counseled. Yeah and I -- I just wanted to make 

a remark just as a closed of yesterday that just to remember 

that there are still a number of state agencies. We're an 

instrumentality of the state of Vermont. There are many

nonprofits that still hold the remainders of their FFEL

portfolios.

We counseled people from, you know, about 

their state grants, about scholarships. We have outreach to 

students in high schools and middle schools. So, we -- we are 

talking to a lot of Vermont students and families and we do have 

counseling points around PSLF because we do -- we engage with a 

lot of different people in our state capacity.

So, we just wanted to -- to add that. So, I 

have no concern adding Ed. you know that we would -- we remind 

people about PSLF and direct them to the department which would 

be something that we would do already.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. I appreciate your 

comments and I think -- Jennifer, I'll give you a chance to 

respond and then unless I see new hands, I think we might ask 

for just a quick temperature check for TA after David. So, 

Jennifer, the floor is yours.

MS. HONG: Just a quick clarifying point for

Jaye that this -- the proposal to stop the clock restarting
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

25

consolidation is a proposal. So, it's not codify -- it's not the 

current practice, and that's something going forward that we 

would like to remedy. So, we would need to proactively do that 

in order to allow those benefits for both DL and borrowers that

have underlying FFEL loans.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. And then David, do you 

want to conclude -- if anything?

MR. TANDBERG: It's fine. I have just some -

- some thoughts on the communication issue but perhaps that's 

something I can communicate with Joe on and then we can get 

language that is more substantive later.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, I appreciate it, no 

problem. So with that, again we're just going to ask for a 

temperature check on TA. Thumbs right clearly in front, if you 

want to just show how they're feeling on this. And again, just 

to remind you, strong support, you can live with it. Thumbs 

down, if serious reservations.

So, Persis, David and Joe, unless I'm 

missing something, those are the three thumbs down. So Joe and 

David, I heard your concerns and Joe, you're going to get back 

to the committee with some suggestions. Persis, anything to add 

on top of those?

MS. YU: No, I just echo Joe and David's 

concerns.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. Alright, thanks so 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

26

much. I think -- Jennifer, are you ready to move to PSLF 

eligibility?

MS. HONG: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Great and then Aaron, whenever 

you're ready, if you want to share that document.

MS. HONG: Actually, Aaron, if you -- if you 

could just keep -- maybe we could just keep the proposed 

regulatory text. I think we have some language on the full-time 

part though, we don't have any proposed language on the employer 

eligibility. I just -- we wanted to open for discussion.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, no red line text. 

This is just the committee's deliberation.

MS. HONG: Right, like so page -- okay so 

there's two subtopics on the next issue paper and I’ll just 

start reviewing that right now. So, issue paper number 5 is the 

second public service loan forgiveness issue paper and it is on 

employer eligibility and full-time employment.

Again, under Section 455M of the HEA, the 

Secretary will cancel outstanding balances on eligible loans for 

borrowers who are employed in public service jobs. So, we know 

that all levels of government and 501(c)(3) organizations are 

qualifying employers for purposes of PSLF.

However, the statute also includes 

qualifying jobs and employers that are not government or 

501(c)(3) organizations, if they provide certain services such 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

27

as public health and public interest law services.

We find that many of these services are 

undefined and those that have definitions may be unclear to 

borrowers seeking to determine employer qualification.

So as to the first subtopic for employer 

eligibility, we're seeking ideas on how to best define the 

primary service an organization provides, if it's not a 

501(c)(3) or a government organization but seeks to otherwise 

qualifies a public service employer for PSLF purposes.

So, the department is proposing to establish 

a primary service definition to ensure employers perform one of 

the public services included in the statute as the primary 

function of the organization. We would like ideas on what to

include in that definition. So, that's the first piece.

The second part of this is to get ideas from 

the committee on ways to define what services must be provided 

to qualify as a public service employer. For example, are there 

existing definitions for these services used by other federal 

agencies that the department could rely on? As always, we are --

we welcome proposals related to those issues that could be 

automated.

MR. ROBERTS: And just really briefly, so I 

don't' think that the document being shared right now is --

because there's no accompanying regulatory text that we're 

deliberating but do you have a document that has the questions 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

28

to guide the discussion?

MS. HONG: Yes, we do have -- yeah, okay. 

So, maybe you're right, maybe we should go to the issue paper, 

sorry, Aaron.

MR. ROBERTS: That's okay, that's okay.

MS. HONG: I told him to pull that up 

because we do have the full-time employment text but that's --

we're not discussing that. So if you want to pull up issue paper 

number 5, Aaron.

Yep, there we go. Those -- you could just go 

up to the time of primary right here, perfect under define --

you know define the primary services of an organization. So...

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, so we'll open discussion 

on that, if everyone just wants to take a quick second to reread 

that and then I will begin recognizing folks. So, Christina, 

please.

MS. TANGALAKIS: Hi, good morning. Thank you 

for the opportunity. I asked to be-- partake in this 

conversation because this was something that I put some thought 

to yesterday about how to expand this definition or how to 

create this definition of the employer, the expanded deployment 

definition, to include students who are in situations where they 

can't access employment in their chosen field at a nonprofit 

organization and all.

And the few examples that I -- that I was 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

29

running through in my mind just kind of test cases would be a 

situation, let's say, where someone works that -- there's a 

large private company that is a food service, for profit, but 

they have a division that provides school lunches and they 

contract with local school districts to provide school lunches.

And now, we got staff who prepare 

nutritional meals for school districts which is, you know, I 

think almost by a wide margin would be considered a public 

service and how would -- how would someone who was in that 

position be treated in any proposed language.

Similar -- a similar case would be someone 

who chose to be -- chosen and trained to be a nurse and couldn't 

find full-time work at a nonprofit or a hospital that meets this 

-- the current definition of eligible employer. And so they 

worked for a company, a private company that is nurse placement, 

that is a temporary staffing.

So, this company may not meet the definition 

for eligible employer but the work being done by the borrower, 

should the borrower be disadvantaged or somehow excluded from 

relief of his or her debt by virtue of who produces their 

paycheck when the day to day work is the work of public service 

and providing care.

And that was the -- the intent of the -- of 

the borrower when they pursue the training. And through no fault 

of their own, jobs were not available...
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

30

MR. TOTONCHI: Thirty seconds.

MS. TANGALAKIS: Jobs were not available and 

their chosen field with the -- with the right definition of 

employer. So, now we're putting students and former students and 

borrowers in this kind of Faustian deal between do I meet my 

current needs or -- for employment or do I wait for the right 

kind of jobs to get my long-term economic security is -- is --

is more secure with loan forgiveness. And that's kind of an 

untenable position and I just wanted to keep that definition in 

my mind as we move forward. Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you Christina and I said 

it earlier but just to reiterate anything that is proposed 

because we're not doing the regulatory text, just feel free to 

pop them in the chat if you have unanswered questions or 

proposed modifications or suggestions to the department. It's 

really helpful for the transcript. So with that, Jennifer, I'll 

allow you a response.

MS. HONG: And thank you for your comments, 

Christina. I think what you described is exactly what we're 

trying to get at. We recognized those scenarios. I also wanted 

to acknowledge that you have Heather, the PSLF advisor on the 

Committee, eager to hear.

I know she put some stuff in the chat from 

her – from her, her thoughts on this as well. The reason why we 

privilege the employer is because we do -- we do have to 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

31

operationalize this process. And we have not found and my good 

colleague Brian can probably talk more about this as he was here 

when these rules were first negotiated.

We have not found a feasible way to tackle 

this problem. We cannot, you know, our operations with -- that 

would require us to be looking at individual job descriptions 

but we just -- we don't have the capacity to do that.

So, that's why the eligibility focus has 

been on the employer. That's why we shifted to this primary 

service permission of a private organization and that is why 

we're putting this out for you guys, just to hear your thoughts, 

is because we have to find a way to make this work (inaudible) 

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Persis?

MS. YU. Thank you and I appreciate the 

operational difficulties. I'm curious -- this is just to kind of 

follow-up, I'm curious in the -- in the issue paper, the 

organization, so long as it’s not defined -- does it, I'm sorry, 

I'm losing the words. As long as not a for-profit organization 

and I'm curious if that is both required by the statute and how 

that is defined.

One of the things that I'm thinking of is in 

the legal profession, a lot of services are provided by solo 

practitioners or small firms who are then contracting with 

government entities and currently they are not eligible. And I 

think that this, you know, especially where a lot of legal 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

32

services, public defense work -- work for indigent children is 

done by contractors. I mean, it's done here in Boston, but 

especially in rural areas where we're cutting out a lot of folks 

who are technically organized for profit but are not making a 

lot of money in the work that they're doing. And they are 

certainly doing public service work.

And so, I would encourage the department to 

look at ways that we could include that. I also would love to 

hear from Heather, as I know, she has a lot of expertise on 

that, so I hope -- hopefully she will be invited to the table as 

well.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. Thank you. Brian, would 

you like to respond?

MR. SIEGEL: Yes. Regard to the for-profit 

that provision was adopted when we did the regulations. It's not 

specifically in the HEA, but we believed that it was consistent 

with congressional intent, which focuses on nonprofits and 

government agencies. We struggled at the same time with the 

issue that Persis mentioned, which is how do you deal with 

nonprofit -- with for-profits that are providing some of these 

services, but it's not a major part of their business. Again, 

you know, if there's-- trying to draw those lines is 

complicated, but you know, we're open to, to further discussion 

on that.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. And I see, I just want 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

33

to recognize Heather Jarvis who is serving this committee in a 

capacity as advisor on PSLF. So Marjorie, David, and Bethany 

with your permission, just because she's been addressed a couple 

times, is it okay if she speaks? Great. Thank you, Marjorie. The 

floor -- sorry, Heather, the floor is yours.

MS. JARVIS: Thanks very much, Brady. Hello 

everyone. Thank you for inviting me to join your conversation 

and thank you to the Department of Education for suggesting 

these ideas. I would like to begin by stating that I think 

defining the primary services of an organization is, is 

potentially not the best way to get where we're going.

As Jennifer and Brian have said the statute 

already clearly covers all full-time employment for government 

agencies, entities at all levels, as well as for organizations 

that have achieved 501(c)(3) status through the IRS. And so the 

present language limits the universe of employment that we need 

to define, to nonprofit jobs that also -- that are not (c)(3) or 

government, but that provide a public service. And I want to 

point out to this committee that that will be a very tiny 

negligible amount of organizations.

Organizations whose primary purpose and 

service is providing public services will nearly always be 

government or 501(c)(3) nonprofit employers. And because we have 

to give effect to everything in the statute, we must look to the 

list of public service that is provided quite clearly, emergency 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

34

management, et cetera, and look to see who is doing that work 

that is not doing it at a (c)(3) or a government.

And those people may be employed in 

nonprofits or they may be employed in for-profits. And although 

I appreciate and wholeheartedly agree that we should look first 

to an employer and an organization, and if it's a government or 

a 501(c)(3) then great, it doesn't matter what the borrower does 

within that organization.

But if we're trying to expand the list of 

eligible employment beyond (c)(3) and government, we need to 

reconsider whether that employment needs to be nonprofit at all. 

If it is going to be nonprofit, then we could spend -- and FSA 

could spend a lot of time trying to find those needles in that 

haystack and it would be operationally difficult and have little 

impact for a few borrowers.

So I think that it is -- there are some 

other ideas. I have some ideas for regulatory language I'd be 

happy to put together and distribute to this group as well as 

the department. I'd love to hear whatever else the committee has 

to say and I'm available to answer any questions or weigh in as 

we continue this conversation.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. Thanks so much, 

Heather. Bethany we'll pick right back up.

MS. LILLY: Heather actually set up my 

question, I think really, really well, which is, so we had a 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

35

young man on the public comment period on the first day who was 

talking about being a disability service provider and not being 

able to access public service loan forgiveness. And I'm not sure 

why because he didn't really get into the details there, but 

that is actually an ongoing problem, I think. Not so much in the 

folks like my network that are 501(c)(3) or in other networks 

where you have folks who are in that context.

But one specific example I want to name is 

when you use a staffing agency, which will be a for-profit 

company that is like placing frontline disability service 

providers at various other places. Like those are exactly the 

folks we want to be qualifying for public service loan 

forgiveness, but they are, because they're going through a 

staffing agency to be placed somewhere, not going to qualify in 

the traditional way.

So I really like, Heather's kind of outline 

of starting with the 501(c)(3) and the governmental agencies, 

and then having another set of kind of folks that we're taking a 

look at. And I also think given the broader trends in employment 

across this country where you have a lot more gig employment and 

you have a lot more other types of employment with untraditional 

employees, that's also something we should be thinking about. I 

don't really have a solution there, but I think that setting up 

the structure like Heather laid out in the chat would at least 

get us closer to that. So, I will turn it over to other folks.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

36

MR. ROBERTS: Great. Thanks. David.

MR. TANDBERG: Yeah, I'm -- I'll be honest, 

I'm really struggling with this one. And I'm --I'm compelled by 

the discussions, particularly around the aid workers, healthcare 

workers, and the like that are -- end up having to work through 

for-profit placement firms and, and such situations like that. 

But then I'm really nervous about extending this program into 

the for-profit world. It -- it -- it seems that wealthy forprofit companies could see this as, you know, get their lawyers 

working on it so they comply with the regulations.

It would be a great hiring incentive to say, 

hey, we -- we work this out, you can get loan forgiveness when 

they -- it may not actually be the type of services or -- or, 

you know, employment area that matches the spirit of the 

original legislation and the regulations that have followed. It 

-- my observation is that companies are very, very effective at 

crafting language and arguments that allows them to manipulate 

any loophole to their benefit, which, yeah, Heather, which the 

other organizations may not have the resources to compete.

And I would think the regulations would have 

to be written with that in mind of companies taken advantage of 

this to their own benefit while not offering true public 

service. And, you know, I think the intent originally was to 

incentivize people to go into public service, where they’re not 

being paid the salaries that they would be in the private 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

37

sector. And so just some concerns. And I'm definitely interested 

in the language that Heather may craft because I think she kind 

of is thinking in similar lines.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. Thanks, David. 

Marjorie?

MS. DORIME-WILLIAMS: So, I just wanna -- I 

think sort of extend on Bethany's point and thank you for 

sharing that because I was also thinking about the gentleman who 

did give public comment. And I'm wondering if, and I know we're 

probably getting into the weeds in this, in thinking about maybe 

these tiers of verification like educational or degree might be 

a piece of this puzzle.

And so, you know, I have an MSW, I might not 

work for a not so for-profit, but I'm still doing public service 

social work. Am I now penalize because an opportunity came up 

and I took it, but it's not an -- but I'm doing the same kind of 

work? And so I don't know necessarily how that language would be 

articulated, but maybe-- we do know what people graduate with.

We, you know, IPEDS and that kind of data. 

Could we maybe also think about tying the type of degree someone 

has to the work that they're doing as a -- as a verifiable way 

to think about public service work, as opposed to -- I think 

David's point, you know, private organizations and that can get 

really tricky.

And so, maybe tying it to something that can
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

38

be verified by the department through the work that an NGO is 

doing and, you know, particularly I'm thinking about like social 

work and teaching and education, healthcare. There are lots of 

fields where you may not be, again, at a government agency or 

not-for-profit, but still doing the same type of work. I guess 

my concern is, are we penalizing people for choosing a 

particular organization to work at, but it's not a not-forprofit? Like, do I have to think, oh, I can't take this job 

because then I won't be able to pay off my loans?

MR. ROBERTS: Great. Thanks. And before we 

get to the next folks in the line, Brian, I saw you come off 

mute. Do you have an immediate reaction to any of the past few 

speakers or you just rather than put it in the chat?

MR. SIEGEL: I'll just note that information 

is in IPEDS. We don't have degree information on an individual 

borrower basis. That's not something we collect, you know. We 

just collect it in general for schools for purposes of public 

disclosure and the IPEDS reports, but we don't collect it on an 

individual basis.

MR. ROBERTS: Thanks. And so next up we have

Alyssa and Emily and just before they speak, I wanted to 

introduce them. Alyssa is an alternate for financial aid 

administrators and Emily is an alternate for military service 

members, veterans and groups representing them. So please, the 

floor is yours Alyssa for three minutes.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

39

MS. DOBSON: Sure. Brian, just quickly, you 

do have zip code though associated with those borrowers, which 

could be related to their field of study. That was just kind of 

an aside. What I really wanted to talk about was I agree with 

not, I guess, harming the borrower based on their employer. I 

think that natural market forces will do more to determine where 

a student works rather than an employer's incentive for loan 

forgiveness.

But also I wonder if SOC codes, Standard 

Occupation Codes, might be a really good way to link somebody to 

the work that they're doing. I think that's easily certifiable. 

I think that's easily codifiable and I wouldn't suggest 

replacing employer eligibility, but adding in, you know, if 

you're not eligible based on your employer, perhaps you're 

eligible based on your occupation and you know, both the 

employer as well as their taxes could verify their occupation.

And I also think if we do that, then there's 

space to you include self-employed individuals again, SOC code 

and their Schedule C could validate the work that they're doing.

MR. ROBERTS: I believe you're muted, Emily, 

but you're recognized for -- there you go. Perfect. Oh, we can't 

hear you right now, Emily. If you just wanna fiddle with it --

oh wait, there you go. Yeah, I just saw it. You're good.

DEVITO: I apologize. Thank you for your 

patience. So good morning. There are two types of work that we 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

40

really wanted to just flag that might not be covered in this 

current language. So, one for the majority of veteran service 

organizations do fall under 501(c)(3). Some of the largest VSOs 

for example, Veterans of Foreign Wars and American Legion fall 

under 501(c)(19) and Disabled Veterans of America or Disabled 

American Veterans are 501(c)(4). And I'm -- this is not an 

exhaustive list.

I'm just using these three examples because 

these three also, not only are they huge VSOs, they also employ 

in large part VA accredited representatives who actually work at 

VA locations and have VA e-mails and are not eligible currently 

under PSLF. So, here we might recommend language that could 

include VA recognized VSOs that would allow those VSOs that are 

not currently 501(c)(3) to be included.

And then a second category that would not 

also be captured in this current language because it's not 

traditional, it would be military and the veteran caregivers. So

they're not traditionally employed by the VA. However, they 

received stipends from the VA, actually commensurate with 

federal employee as a GS-4 healthcare. They even get time off. 

So in all true senses, they are employees, but they would not be

eligible for PSLF in this current language. So we would 

recommend that people who are participating in that program 

through the VA, again, also easily automated would be able to be

included.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

41

MR. ROBERTS: Great. Thanks Emily. And as 

always any -- any of those suggestions, please capture those in 

chat. Jeri, before I recognize you, ED, after this, I'm just 

conscious of time. After Jeri and Heather, whose hand I just 

saw, do you wanna move onto the next issue or do you wanna keep 

this issue through lunchtime?

MS. HONG: Oh, okay. This, I think there's a 

lot of good information in the chat as well. I think if we could 

keep moving on and so we could wrap up this issue paper before 

lunch, that would be really great.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. So we'll do Jeri, 

Heather, and then do a temperature check for a TA.

MS. O'BRYAN-LOSEE: Hi, thanks. I just want 

to -- I did already put it -- put my suggestion in the chat box, 

but I just wanted to talk to go back to students a little -- a 

little bit and people who have -- are, you know, are continuing 

on such as residents. You know, we have a -- I work with three 

educational hospitals in New York that provide residents 

throughout the area so their primary -- their primary placement 

is with one of our SUNY schools, our public universities.

But when they do rotation, they may have a 

small rotation in the community at a for-profit place even 

though they're associated with Downstate Medical, they maybe --

have a couple of weeks, a few rotation at another place. And so 

they pop on and off and on and off and on and off. And again, 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

42

their primary place is a public service position, but as they 

work through their specialties. And I think looking at that is 

important, especially, you know, when we look at drawing people 

to you know, healthcare that we want to with this program. Thank 

you.

MR. ROBERTS: Thanks. Heather, to wrap us 

up.

MS. JARVIS: Thanks, Brady. I -- I do also 

want to say in response to ED's proposal, Raj and I have begun 

looking at some data sources we've identified that do purport to 

classifying nonprofit organizations by their primary purpose. 

And this is data that comes from IRS reviewers. So, Raj is 

looking into that more specifically now. I enlisted his 

assistance because the data is voluminous. But I do think it's 

possible to do a better job of finding which nonprofits do 

public services. But I, you know, continue to emphasize that I 

think that that's really a rather narrow point and that it -- we 

don't want ED spending a tremendous amount of time on -- on that 

particular substance of borrowers.

MS. HONG: I just -- I appreciate that 

point, Heather, and we -- we definitely would be interested in 

seeing what you and Raj come up with. Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. Thanks everyone for 

this discussion. As always the -- all the comment and input in

chat. So, if you can briefly unshare the document, then I'll 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

43

have you scroll down and reshare it for the -- the full time 

employment definition conversation. Just do a quick temperature 

check to TA to close discussion at this point on defining 

primary services of a private organization. So, if you wouldn't 

mind showing thumbs.

MS. LILY: Sorry. Sorry, but I -- we did 

this before like, we have had such an all over the place 

discussion here that I don't understand what we're taking the 

temperature check on and I would -- I don't know that we need 

to, given that it was more of an informative discussion for the 

department. I would understand if Jen wants us to take one, but 

just like it was so all over the place, I'm really not sure what 

I'm indicating support for or against.

MR. ROBERTS: No, sure. It's a -- it's a 

fair question. For us, for our purposes, it's really just to get 

an understanding if conversation is closed at this point and we 

can move on to the next issue, but if folks want to keep talking 

about this, obviously thumbs down, we can bring it back up, but 

I'll turn it over to you, Jennifer.

MS. HONG: Thank you. Yes. I mean, I think 

we're -- I think it is an open ended discussion that we're 

having. We -- if -- if we could take a temperature check on the 

concept of going toward a primary service or a private 

organization of that piece, Bethany, and others, I just like to 

kind of gauge how people are feeling on that. I know -- I know 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

44

we've heard -- your thoughts on it already, but just overall, if 

we could do a temperature check on this idea, this concept.

MR. ROBERTS: Show of thumbs. Sideways.

MS. O'BRYAN-LOSEE: Are you gonna unshare 

the screen?

MR. TANDBERG: Should we -- should we 

unshared?

MR. ROBERTS: Yeah. Would you mind unsharing 

the screen? Aaron very briefly. Thank you. So, I'm seeing 

Christina any succinct summation of your major disagreements on 

the concept right now?

MS. TANGALAKIS: Well, again, I share 

Bethany's concern that I'm not quite sure what we're voting on. 

I mean, you're taking the temperature on whether there is some 

type of tentative consensus or whether I feel that the 

conversation that I've said all I need to say on the issue.

MR. ROBERTS: Jen, if you wanna speak to 

that feel free.

MS. HONG: Yeah, Christina, I just -- I 

wanna be clear everyone is clear what we're taking tentative 

agreement on. The concept of leading with an organization and 

defining the primary services of an organization, I've -- I've -

- we heard your reservations about that and Heather's. I just 

wanted to get a temperature check on that concept defining the 

primary service of an organization.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

45

MS. TANGALAKIS:: Okay.

MS. HONG: Yeah. Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. Thanks Jennifer. So 

with that, Aaron (phonetic), if you wanna re-share that same 

issue, paper number five. And then briefly scroll down. Alright. 

And Jennifer, I'll turn it over to you just to -- to reintroduce 

the topic.

MS. HONG: Sure. This is our full-time 

employment. We do have regulatory texts on this. So after if you 

want -- after my presentation, Aaron if you wouldn't mind then 

going back to page one of the proposed regulatory text that way 

folks can see both documents, and thank you for that. So this is 

just -- this is actually pretty straightforward.

Second sub topic is just to clarify the 

definition of full-time employ employment. We proposed defining 

full-time as 30 hours for all borrowers, therefore striking the 

language which set the full-time employment at the greater of 30 

hours or how the employer defines it. We also proposed to use a 

credits taught to hours’ work conversion factor to help adjunct 

instructors starting with a threshold at two and a half hours 

per credit hour with a 30-hour work requirement. I do realize 

there was a public comment on this particular issue the other 

day and use of the term “adjunct” generally. So, we did have a 

question about that and we appreciate discussion on that.

And another piece is we are incorporating 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

46

existing practice into regulations by asking employers to 

certify average hours worked for the time covered in an 

employment certification rather than the entire year. We believe 

this will help borrowers to work in seasonal eligible employment 

to be considered full time for the months that they were engaged 

in that work. And that is all I have on that.

If we could open that up for discussion and 

then Aaron if you could pull up the language proposed regulatory 

language page. It should be on page one with definition of full 

time employment. And I believe, I think, Beth, you know, Bethany 

had a question about FMLA- Family Medical Leave Act and that --

that inform -- that is captured there as well in the section. 

And I'll put myself on mute.

 MR. ROBERTS: Alright, thanks. And just as a 

quick time check, we're a little over five minutes until our 

noon break so I'm gonna take the queue right now and we'll --

we'll pick it right back up at the conclusion of lunch but just 

know we might -- have to pause people mid -- mid -- mid comment, 

period. So, Heather, please.

MS. JARVIS: Thanks, Brady. I appreciate the 

department looking to clarify this definition. I fully support 

eliminating the disjunction between the employer's definition of 

full time and 30 hours per week. It strikes me that if -- if we 

go with 30 hours per week that -- and we use the department's 

suggestion of certifying that in the month or over the period, 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

47

which is being certified on documentation, we may not need all 

these -- all this extra language. We may be able to just say, 

you know, 30 hours a week and leave it at that.

And I would also say that, you know, what is 

wrong with allowing faculty and others assert that they work 30 

hours and that they exert effort over at least 30 hours per week 

and certify that by their signature of their organizational 

official. And in my view, that ought to be sufficient. It 

doesn't necessarily -- I think it's not necessarily important 

that faculty be able to demonstrate how many credit hours they 

are teaching.

And I think it would be useful to clarify 

for employers that the definition of full-time as presented in 

the regulations is what the Department of Education considers to 

be full-time for public service loan forgiveness. That is in 

fact not conflated with the employer's definition of what a full 

time equivalent is or what someone has to work in order to 

receive benefits. Employers have a lot of motivation to have 

employees that are not full time because then they don't have to 

provide benefits that are expensive, yet people often work more 

hours.

And so, I think that the, you know, 

recognition that public service loan forgiveness works hand in 

hand with income-driven repayment. The more people earn, the 

more they'll pay. That if people who are working at least 30 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

48

hours per week, and assert so, that they -- they ought to be 

considered full time.

MR. ROBERTS: Thanks, Heather. So, just to 

keeping with the time, Jeri, you're gonna be recognized for 

three minutes, but then Bethany, Suzanne, on behalf of state 

regulators, Marjorie, and Heather, I copied them the order of 

your hand raising and then we'll pick it right back up over 

lunch, if that's okay. Alright. Jeri, the floor is yours.

O'BRYAN-LOSEE: Alright. So, hi. Okay. So I 

represent about, you know, 20,000 adjunct contingent people. And 

it would be great if you could just say, I know I work 30 hours, 

but in my experience with the people I've worked with, H.R. 

departments don't do that. They say, you know, you're a parttime because if we say you're full-time that opens you up to 

other benefits because we've used the word full-time.

My proposal, and I'll put it in the chat 

box, is that we look at, at least 2.5 or I'm sorry -- that we 

look -- if we changed the 2.5 to at least a 3.35, which is 

actually state law in, well, I think its California and Oregon, 

actually have a higher rate for adjunct people. This is a huge 

problem because going back and forth between multiple 

institutions even is more than 30 hours. It's -- it's more than,

but getting an employer to recognize that is a huge problem 

because I can say, well, according to this meeting, I was just 

on, this is what you should be doing, and they laugh in my face 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

49

and say, well, what it says is, I get to choose if you've taught 

that much.

And so I'm -- I think that -- I don't think 

the 2.5 hours works for me because that's like what I always 

tell my students. That's what I say when I'm like, well, you 

should think about two and a half hours outside of class, but 

you know, to put in into class. But faculty do more, and 

especially you're talking about marginalized people who, you 

know, subs, you know, subsidize with food stamps, you know.

It needs to be really clear that they can 

hit that in a way that they haven't been able to for -- they 

haven't been able to before. It takes away the like, worry about 

like, well, do -- does this H.R. person wanna say yes? Does that 

H.R. person wanna say yes? It makes it much more clear about --

about what -- what the adjunct faculty go through.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. Thank you so much. 

And again, I copied down the -- the order of folks that we'll 

pick right back up over lunch, but you have an hour time off 

camera starting now. Thanks everyone.
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

50

1
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

51

Appendix

Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education 

Zoom Chat Transcript 

Affordability and Student Loans Committee - Session 1, Day 4, 

Morning, October 7, 2021 

 

DISCLAIMER: 

Note: The following is the output of transcribing from a 

recording. Although the transcription is largely accurate; in 

some cases, it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible 

passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to 

understanding the proceedings at the meeting, but should not be 

treated as an authoritative record. 

 

From Persis (P) Legal Aid (she/her), NCLC to Everyone: 

They add to the experience 

From Rachelle - 4 Yr Public (A) to Everyone: 

Any pets? 

From Cindy - FMCS Facilitator to Everyone: 

I will be your tech contact today. cjeffries@fmcs.gov 

From Jennifer she/ella, (A) Student Loan 

Barrowers to Everyone: 

Are we missing dependents? 

From Kayla - FMCS to Everyone: 

Those in the caucus space have requested an additional ten 

minutes. I will continue to keep you all updated. 

From John Whitelaw (A-Disability) (he/his) to Everyone: 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

52

Is there any update on when we might reconvene? 

From Jessica (P) Proprietary Institutions to Everyone: 

No slight taken. 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him/his) to Everyone: 

:) 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

+1 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

I also feel like ED administratively might need some more 

time than 90 days given the number of denials so far 

From Bobby (P) Two Year Public Colleges to Everyone: 

Christina, alternate for two year colleges will be sitting 

at the table. 

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Institutions (she/her) to Everyone: 

+1 Bethany 

From Brady - FMCS to Everyone: 

Thanks Bobby 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him/his) to Everyone: 

What happens to borrowers between 10/31/22 when the 

temporary waivers expire and 7/1/2023 when these regs would 

begin? 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

I have the same question as Daniel. 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him/his) to Everyone: 

Could this section be early implemented? 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

53

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 to Persis on retroactivity 

From Rachelle - 4 Yr Public (A) to Everyone: 

+1 Early implementation 

From Joe (P); State AGs to Everyone: 

+1 to Persis on retroactivity. There are a lot of borrowers 

who have been denied who should be allowed reconsideration. 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

+1 on retroactivity and early implementation. 

From Misty (P) Priv & Non-Profit to Everyone: 

+1 to retroactivity and early implementation! 

From Joe (P); State AGs to Everyone: 

+1 on early implementation 

From Persis (P) Legal Aid (she/her), NCLC to Everyone: 

+1 Joe 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 Joe 

From Christina, (A) 2-Year Public she/her to Everyone: 

on the eligible payment issue: In a non-covid environment, 

borrowers in default must make 9 consecutive on time 

payments to cure their defaulted student loans. I’m 

proposing allowing payments made toward curing a default to 

count toward PSLF relief. And change the on-time language 

to payments made within 30 days of due date. 

From Joe (P); State AGs to Everyone: 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

54

As an example of problems with with the information 

servicers have provided to borrowers in the past, see MA 

AG's settlement with PHEAA: https://www.mass.gov/doc/pheaasettlement-agreement/download 

From Heather - PSLF Advisor to Everyone: 

I'm not sure defining primary services is the best 

question. 

From Heather - PSLF Advisor to Everyone: 

+1 Christina 

From Suzanne (state regulators) (A) to Everyone: 

+1 - focus on job-related activity of borrower and 

beneficiaries of that activity 

From Jeri (P) (she/her), Student Loan Borrowers, 

Primary to Everyone: 

other examples: residents doing rotations, their primary 

placement at a public, but rotate to private hospitals 

From Jeri (P) (she/her), Student Loan Borrowers, 

Primary to Everyone: 

CURRENT PROPOSAL (p 2-3): (3) An organization that 

– (i) Provides a public service; and (ii) is not a 

business organized for profit, a labor union, or a partisan 

political organization REVISED PROPOSAL: (3) An organization 

that – (i) Provides a public service; and (ii) is 

not a business organized for profit, a labor union, or a 

partisan political organization; or (iii) not withstanding 

(ii), is an organization providing medical services at a 

nonprofit or public hospital or other non-profit or public 

health care facility 

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Institutions (she/her) to Everyone: 

Could we create two tiers of eligibility, first through the 

employer and second through the borrower's job description? 

From Heather - PSLF Advisor to Everyone:
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

55

Not required by the statute for jobs to be nonprofit 

From Alyssa (A) Fin Aid Administrators to Everyone: 

Any thoughts on adding a provision to qualify by SOC code 

in addition to employer? 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him/his) to Everyone: 

Another example of an employee who would not qualify under 

current rules are a financial aid administrator at a forprofit institution, but the similar job at a not-for-profit 

or state school would qualify, 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him/his) to Everyone: 

This should be resolved. 

From Christina, (A) 2-Year Public she/her to Everyone: 

+1 Daniel 

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Institutions (she/her) to Everyone: 

+1 Alyssa 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him/his) to Everyone: 

+2 to ALyssa 

From Heather - PSLF Advisor to Everyone: 

Focus on organization first, job description only for folks 

not employed by c3 or gov 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him/his) to Everyone: 

Switching with Allysa, alternate, who wants to add a 

comment. 

From Brady - FMCS to Everyone: 

Thanks Daniel! 

From Christina, (A) 2-Year Public she/her to Everyone: 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

56

+1 Heather 

From Christina, (A) 2-Year Public she/her to Everyone: 

a two tier employment verification 

From Suzanne (state regulators) (A) to Everyone: 

+1, need to be future focused re: gig work 

From Heather - PSLF Advisor to Everyone: 

+1 David (private prisons come to mind) 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

I think we need to prioritize the borrower--I understand 

the concerns about employer bad actors, but I think our 

responsibility here is to focus on the borrower. It's often 

not a choice where they end up working 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

https://www.newamerica.org/educationpolicy/edcentral/publicservice/ 

From Persis (P) Legal Aid (she/her), NCLC to Everyone: 

+1 Bethany 

From Misty (P) Priv & Non-Profit to Everyone: 

I agree with Bethany 

From Alyssa (A) Fin Aid Administrators to Everyone: 

Just want to add that ED should be familiar with SOC codes 

given the construct of GE programs. Shouldn't be a huge 

hurdle to incorporate it here. And easily added to the 

current form. 

From Heather - PSLF Advisor to Everyone: 

Re: David's link New America has written many antiPSLF 

pieces over the years. 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

57

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+1 on caregivers 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

Medicaid reimburses some caregivers as well 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

True but I think the argument around the difficulty in 

defining public service are worth considering 

From Heather - PSLF Advisor to Everyone: 

+1 David 

From Noelia, Minority Serving Inst. (A) to Everyone: 

+ David 

From Christina, (A) 2-Year Public she/her to Everyone: 

the "primary function" language is unnecessarily 

restrictive 

From Misty (P) Priv & Non-Profit to Everyone: 

+ 1 to Jeri's comment about including residency 

From Persis (P) Legal Aid (she/her), NCLC to Everyone: 

To Jeri's point: 1200 of 6000 community hospitals are forprofit. 

 

https://www.aha.org/statistics/fast-facts-us-hospitals 

From Joe (P); State AGs to Everyone: 

Agree with Bethany - what are we taking temperature on? 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

58

I have yet to see an example of when the opportunity for 

large corporations to take advantage of a law or regulation 

and they haven't done so. 

From Heather - PSLF Advisor to Everyone: 

+1 David 

From Michaela (P) Ind. Students to Everyone: 

I support the idea of DoE drafting language and continuing 

development of the concept: defining the primary services 

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to Everyone: 

To David's point earlier with the link he dropped, how are 

we defining public service? Agriculture laborers should be 

included. 

From Michaela (P) Ind. Students to Everyone: 

To explain my thumbs up 

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Admin (he/him/his) to Everyone: 

I am back in for FIn Aid Admin 

From Heather - PSLF Advisor to Everyone: 

Can ED please also plan to provide clarification regarding 

which organizational data are included in the PSLF Help 

Tool 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

Suzanne, my alternate, has a comment/question. 

From Will (A) FFEL Agencies Lenders to Everyone: 

+1 for Heather's comments Would support the concept of less 

language versus more, and providing clear instructions to 

employer 

From Persis (P) Legal Aid (she/her), NCLC to Everyone: 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

59

+1 on Heather's idea of self-certification 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

You can take me off the list 

From Brady - FMCS to Everyone: 

Understood! 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

Because Heather raised the issue I have 

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

I want to reflect that the public commenter had serious 

concerns about this and I'd like those concerns to be 

taken into account 

From Suzanne (state regulators) (A) to Everyone: 

+1 jeri is raising my points re lecturers 

From Heather - PSLF Advisor to Everyone: 

+1 Jeri 

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to Everyone: 

+1 On adjunct professors/guest lecturers point that Jeri 

made 

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Institutions (she/her) to Everyone: 

Jeri addressed my point. 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

+1 to Jeri - it seems that adjuncting a multiple 

institutions is increasingly common 

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone: 

*at 
Negotiated Rulemaking 10/7/2021

60

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone: 

+ Jeri too 

From Marjorie (P), 4 Yr Institutions (she/her) to Everyone: 

We have more contingent faculty than full-time faculty at 

most institutions. 

From Dixie (P) Dependent Students (ella/she) to Everyone: 

Most adjunct profs in CA are BIPOC/low income with huge 

loans to pay off and thus need to teach at multiple 

campuses 

From Jeri (P) (she/her), Student Loan Borrowers, 

Primary to Everyone:

1. (C) The equivalent of 30 hours per week by converting 

each credit hour taught into at least 2.5 hours worked each 

week, for adjunct faculty employment. PROPOSAL: 1. (C) The 

equivalent of 30 hours per week by converting each credit 

hour taught into at least 3.35 hours worked each week, for 

adjunct/contingent/nontenure-track faculty employment. 

From Jeri (P) (she/her), Student Loan Borrowers, 

Primary to Everyone: 

Rationale: • The Carnegie Unit, widely in-use at 

institutions of higher education in all sectors, sets an 

academic standard of 3 hours of student work per credit 

hour, and the definition of full-time for the academic 

employee should not be below this. • At least one state has 

already set a statutory multiplier higher than this--

California at 3.35 hours worked per week. In our experience 

this more accurately reflects the hours faculty actually 

work. The added 0.35 hours have no cost implications for 

the employer, as this multiplier bears no relationship to 

other multipliers already established for purposes like 

ACA. • Language “adjunct/contingent/nontenure-track” 

encompasses all terms used to describe these employees, for 

avoidance of doubt.