Transcript Slide 1

Notices of Proposed Rulemaking
Carol Lindsey – TG, Vice President, Policy and Compliance
Joe Pettibon, Assistant Provost, Texas A&M University
It’s the law!
• The Neg Reg process is mandated by law for
changes in Title IV program regulations
• The process is designed to solicit public input,
practitioner expertise, and comments from
stakeholders in federal rule changes
• This process originates with changes to the
law, or issues of concern to ED or the public
Important Neg Reg concepts
• Goal: to develop a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) that reflects a final
consensus of the negotiating committee
• Consensus: there must be no dissent by any
member on any issue for the committee to
reach consensus
The process
• ED holds meetings/hearings to solicit input on
issues
• ED proposes topics
• ED solicits nominations for non-federal
negotiators and alternates
• ED selects non-federal negotiators
• ED announces proposed topics, confirmed
negotiators, and meeting schedule
ED Website
• http://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hea
rulemaking/2009/negreg-summerfall.html
– Includes a “Team” web page
– Includes the NPRM
Organizational protocols
• Safeguards for members
– any member may withdraw at any time
– all members shall act in good faith
– contact with the press is generally limited to
discussion of overall objectives and progress
• Meeting facilitation
– ED selects third-party facilitators to assist the
committee in meetings and other deliberations
Committee members
• Committees typically involve 12-15 primary
negotiators, representing those most likely to
be significantly impacted by proposed topics
and potential outcomes
• Additionally, alternate negotiators are
appointed from same broad stakeholder
groups represented by primary negotiators
Committee members – 2009-2010
• Schools/Lenders
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
2- year public
4-year public
Financial aid administrators
Lending community
Private nonprofit
Private for-profit
College presidents
Admissions
Business officers
• Total of 4 negotiators with
direct aid experience
• Other interests
–
–
–
–
–
–
Students
Consumers
Accreditors
Workforce development
Test publishers – ATB
State higher education officials
Organizational protocols
Decision making
• Consensus
– “...there must be NO dissent by ANY member in
order for the committee to be considered to have
reached agreement.”
– “members should not block or withhold consensus
unless they have serious reservations….”
– “absence will be equivalent to not dissenting”
– “all consensus agreements… will be assumed to be
tentative… until members… agree to make them
final agreements”
Neg Reg agenda
• Agenda items are chosen on the premise that
they can be resolved within the bounds of
regulations
– Neg Reg does not address items requiring
statutory change
– Issues for the agenda ideally are those likely to be
successfully negotiated — that is, that stand a
good chance of reaching consensus
The process
• Committee approves
membership
• Committee approves
protocols
• Committee finalizes
agenda topics
• ED explains issues and
solicits preliminary
input
• Committee reacts
• ED provides draft
regulatory language
• Negotiations occur
• Tentative agreement
may be reached on
individual issues
• Negotiations conclude
with or without
consensus
Rulemaking steps
• ED develops preamble and proposed Regs
• ED may share preamble with Neg Reg
committee if consensus reached
• NPRM published
– submitted to the Federal Register
– posted to IFAP
– 30-90 day public comment period
Rulemaking steps
• ED reviews comments and may make changes
• ED responds to public comments in preamble
of final rules
• Final rules published in Federal Register by
November 1
• Final rules become effective, usually July 1 of
the next year
If consensus reached
• ED will use the consensus-based language in the
NPRM, UNLESS it reopens the Neg Reg process or
provides a written explanation to committee
members of the reasons for making changes. If
there is a change, committee members may
submit comments on the change.
• Negotiators and their organizations WILL REFRAIN
from commenting negatively on the proposed
rules, but may submit comments on any new
considerations or important clarifications.
If consensus not reached
• ED will determine whether or not to proceed
with development of proposed regulatory
changes
• If regulatory changes are proposed, ED will
decide what those changes should be, taking into
consideration the interests of the federal
government , taxpayers, and other stakeholders
• Public comments and non-federal negotiator
priorities and concerns will also be considered in
drafting the proposed regulations
The Issues – 2009-2010
• Broad Issues
–
–
–
–
–
–
Ability To Benefit
State Authorization
HS Diploma
Incentive Compensation
Defining a Credit Hour
Agreements between
Institutions
– Gainful Employment
– Retaking Coursework
– Misrepresentation
• Financial Aid Specific
–
–
–
–
–
Verification
SAP
Disbursements
R2T4 Attendance
R2T4 Mini-Sessions
Broad issues
• Ability To Benefit
– Applies to students without a HS diploma or
equivalent credential
– Should these tests be more closely regulated and
monitored
• State Authorization
– Should schools be eligible for Title IV aid if a state
does not license or otherwise authorize
– Should there be minimum standards for state
authorization
Broad issues
• High School Diploma
– Should there be minimum standards
– In reaction to diploma mills
• Incentive Compensation
– Financial aid or admission officers may not be paid
based on securing enrollments
– 12 “Safe Harbors” eliminated
Broad issues
• Defining the Credit Hour
– Should there be a standard definition
• Agreements Between Institutions
– In the case of consortia, should there be a
minimum amount of instruction that must be
provided by the credential-granting institution
• Gainful Employment
– What is reasonable loan debt in relation to
expected starting salaries
Broad issues
• Retaking Coursework
– Credit hour and clock hour programs do not share
uniform requirement
• Clock hour > must complete, Credit hour > may retake
• Misrepresentation
– Should current regulations be enhanced
Financial aid specific issues
• Verification
– Flexibility for ED to identify the data fields to be
verified each year
– Changed “base year” to “specified year”
– Eliminate the 30% rule
– Required to send through all ISIR corrections
– Applicant must update all dependency changes
throughout award year
Financial aid specific ssues
• SAP
– Introduces standardized terminology
• Warning and Probation status
– Place time limits on continued Title IV eligibility
• Yearly versus payment period SAP assessments
• Warning status only available if SAP is assessed every
payment period
Financial aid specific issues
• Disbursement
– Primary focus on the timing of disbursement
– Primary concern is the purchase of books for Pell
eligible students
– Proposal: Payment of anticipated credit balances
must occur by the seventh day of the payment
period (if certain conditions apply)
• Or, student must be provided sufficient funds to cover
the purchase of books/supplies
Financial aid specific issues
• R2T4: Attendance
– Current regs: If “required to take attendance by an
outside entity” must use attendance records to
establish the withdrawal date.
– Proposal: If the institution requires instructors to
take attendance, even for just some students or a
limited period, the records must be used
• Concern:
– Census periods > inconsistent treatment depending on timing
Financial aid specific issues
• R2T4: Mini-Sessions or Modules
– Term-based programs with shorter segments
– Current guidance: If student completes one
module or session in the term, not a withdrawal
– Proposal: If student does not complete all days in
the payment period, IS considered a withdrawal
– This would impact term-based schools with
summer mini-sessions on inter-term programs
Tentative agreement
Questions?