Student Debt Relief for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (Direct Loans), the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, the Federal Perkins Loan (Perkins) Program, and the Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) Program, 27564-27617 [2024-07726]
Download as PDF
27564
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 30 and 682
[Docket ID ED–2023–OPE–0123]
RIN 1840–AD93
Student Debt Relief for the William D.
Ford Federal Direct Loan Program
(Direct Loans), the Federal Family
Education Loan (FFEL) Program, the
Federal Perkins Loan (Perkins)
Program, and the Health Education
Assistance Loan (HEAL) Program
Office of Postsecondary
Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The Secretary proposes to
amend the regulations related to the
Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended (HEA) to provide for the
waiver of certain student loan debts.
In this NPRM, the Department
proposes regulations, in accordance
with the Secretary’s authority to waive
repayment of a loan provided by the
HEA, to provide targeted debt relief as
part of efforts to address the burden of
student loan debt. The proposed
regulations would modify the
Department’s existing debt collection
regulations to provide greater specificity
regarding certain non-exhaustive
situations in which the Secretary may
exercise discretion to waive all or part
of any debts owed to the Department.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before May 17, 2024.
ADDRESSES: For more information
regarding submittal of comments, please
see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
Comments must be submitted via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Regulations.gov. However, if you
require an accommodation or cannot
otherwise submit your comments via
Regulations.gov, please contact Rene
Tiongquico at (202) 453–7513 or by
email at Rene.Tiongquico@ed.gov.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Please go
to www.regulations.gov to submit your
comments electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including
instructions for finding a rule on the site
and submitting comments, is available
on the site under ‘‘FAQ.’’ In accordance
with the Providing Accountability
Through Transparency Act of 2023
(Pub. L. 118–9), a summary of not more
than 100 words in length of the
proposed rule, in plain language, is
posted on Regulations.gov in the
rulemaking docket: https://
www.regulations.gov/docket/ED-2023OPE-0123.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
Privacy Note: The Department’s
policy is to generally make comments
received from members of the public
available for public viewing on the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters
should include in their comments only
information about themselves that they
wish to make publicly available.
Commenters should not include in their
comments any information that
identifies other individuals or that
permits readers to identify other
individuals. If, for example, your
comment describes an experience of
someone other than yourself, please do
not identify that individual or include
information that would allow readers to
identify that individual. The
Department may not make comments
that contain personally identifiable
information (PII) about someone other
than the commenter publicly available
on Regulations.gov for privacy reasons.
This may include comments where the
commenter refers to a third-party
individual without using their name if
the Department determines that the
comment provides enough detail that
could allow one or more readers to link
the information to the third-party
individual. If your comment refers to a
third-party individual, please refer to
the third-party individual anonymously
to reduce the chance that information in
your comment could be linked to the
third party. For example, ‘‘a former
student with a graduate level degree’’
does not provide information that
identifies a third-party individual as
opposed to ‘‘my sister, Jane Doe, had
this experience while attending
University X,’’ which does provide
enough information to identify a
specific third-party individual. For
privacy reasons, the Department
reserves the right to not make available
on Regulations.gov any information in
comments that identifies other
individuals, includes information that
would allow readers to identify other
individuals, or includes threats of harm
to another person or to oneself.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information related to general
waivers and length of time in
repayment, contact Richard Blasen at
(202) 987–0315 or by email at
Richard.Blasen@ed.gov. For further
information related to current balances
that exceed original amounts borrowed,
contact Bruce Honer at (202) 987–0750
or by email at Bruce.Honer@ed.gov. For
further information related to waiver
eligibility based on repayment plan and
targeted debt relief, contact Vanessa
Freeman at (202) 987–1336 or by email
at Vanessa.Freeman@ed.gov. For further
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
information related to secretarial actions
and Gainful Employment programs with
low financial value, contact Rene
Tiongquico at (202) 453–7513 or by
email at Rene.Tiongquico@ed.gov. For
further information related to FFEL
Program loans, contact Brian Smith at
(202) 987–0385 or by email at
Brian.Smith@ed.gov.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or
have a speech disability and wish to
access telecommunications relay
services, please dial 7–1–1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Since 1980, the total cost to receive a
four-year postsecondary credential has
nearly tripled, even after accounting for
inflation.1 Pell Grants once covered
nearly 80 percent of the cost of a fouryear public college degree for students
from low- and middle-income families,
but now they only cover a third of those
costs.2 This price growth has
dramatically increased the need for
students to secure student loans,
particularly Federal student loans from
the Department, to cover their
educational costs. The gap between
prices and income means that many
students from low- and middle-income
families have to borrow Federal student
loans in addition to grants and out-ofpocket spending so they can earn a
postsecondary credential. These trends
have resulted in cumulative Federal
loan debt of $1.6 trillion and rising for
more than 43 million borrowers, which
has placed a significant financial burden
upon middle-income borrowers and has
had an even more devastating impact on
vulnerable low-income borrowers.3
After convening the Student Loan
Debt Relief negotiated rulemaking
committee (Committee) and reaching
consensus on various issues discussed
in this NPRM, the Department proposes
regulations, in accordance with the
Secretary’s authority to waive
repayment of a loan provided by section
432(a) of the HEA, to provide debt relief
targeted to address certain specific
circumstances as part of a
1 Trends in College Pricing 2023: Data in Excel.
Table CP–2. Available at https://
research.collegeboard.org/trends/college-pricing.
2 https://www.cbpp.org/research/pell-grants-akey-tool-for-expanding-college-access-andeconomic-opportunity-need.
3 https://studentaid.gov/data-center/student/
portfolio; https://www.census.gov/library/stories/
2021/08/student-debt-weighed-heavily-on-millionseven-before-pandemic.html; https://
www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/frbp/assets/
consumer-finance/reports/cfi-sl-1-paymentsresumption.pdf; https://www.aarp.org/money/
credit-loans-debt/info-2021/student-debt-crisis-forolder-americans.html; https://www.stlouisfed.org/
publications/economic-equity-insights/genderracial-disparities-student-loan-debt.
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
comprehensive effort to address the
burden of Federal student loan debt.
The proposed regulations would modify
the Department’s existing debt
collection regulations to provide greater
specificity regarding the Secretary’s
discretion to waive Federal student loan
debt and specify the Secretary’s
authority to waive all or part of any
debts owed to the Department based on
a number of different circumstances,
such as growth in a borrower’s loan
balance beyond what was owed upon
entering repayment, the amount of time
since the loan first entered repayment,
whether the borrower meets certain
criteria for loan forgiveness or discharge
under existing authority, and whether a
loan was obtained to attend an
institution or program that was subject
to secretarial actions, that closed prior
to secretarial actions, or was associated
with closed Gainful Employment
programs with high debt-to-earnings
rates or low median earnings.
Summary of Select Provisions of This
Regulatory Action
The Department proposes to amend
subparts A, C, E, and F of 34 CFR part
30 and to add a new subpart G. The
Department also proposes to amend part
682 by adding a new § 682.403.
These proposed regulations, in
accordance with the HEA, would
specify the Secretary’s discretionary
authority to waive repayment of the
following amounts:
• The full amount by which the
current outstanding balance on a loan
exceeds the amount owed when the
loan entered repayment for loans being
repaid on any Income-Driven
Repayment (IDR) plan if the borrower’s
income is at or below $120,000 if the
borrower’s filing status is single or
married filing separately, $180,000 if a
borrower files as head of household, or
$240,000 if the borrower is married and
files a joint Federal tax return or the
borrower files as a qualifying surviving
spouse (§ 30.81).
• Up to $20,000 or the amount by
which the current outstanding balance
on a borrower’s loan exceeds the
balance owed upon entering repayment
(§ 30.82).
• The outstanding balance of a loan
taken out to pay for the borrower’s
undergraduate education, or a Federal
Consolidation Loan or a Direct
Consolidation Loan that only repaid
loans received for a borrower’s
undergraduate education, that first
entered repayment on or before July 1,
2005 (§ 30.83).
• The outstanding balance of loans
that first entered repayment on or before
July 1, 2000, if the borrower has any
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
loans obtained for study other than
undergraduate study (§ 30.83).
• The outstanding balance of a loan
for borrowers who would be otherwise
eligible for forgiveness under an IDR
plan or an alternative repayment plan
but who are not currently enrolled in
such a plan (§ 30.84).
• The outstanding balance of a loan
for borrowers determined to be
otherwise eligible for loan discharge,
cancellation, or forgiveness, but who
did not successfully apply (§ 30.85).
• The outstanding balance of a loan
obtained to pay the cost of attending an
institution or program where the
Secretary or other authorized
Department official has issued a final
decision, denial of recertification, or
determination that terminates or
otherwise ends the institution’s or
program’s title IV eligibility due at least
in part to the institution’s or program’s
failure to meet required accountability
standards based on student outcomes or
to its failure to provide sufficient
financial value to students (§ 30.86).
• The outstanding balance of a loan
obtained to pay the cost of attending an
institution or program that closed and
the Secretary or other Department
official has determined the institution or
program failed, for at least one year, to
meet an accountability standard based
on student outcomes, or failed to deliver
sufficient financial value to students
and there was a pending program
review, investigation, or other
Department action at the time of closure
(§ 30.87).
• The outstanding balance of a loan
that is associated with enrollment in a
Gainful Employment (GE) program that
has closed and prior to closure had high
debt-to-earnings rates or low median
earnings rates (§ 30.88).
• In the case of FFEL Program loans
held by a private loan holder or a
guaranty agency, the outstanding
balance of a FFEL Program loan when
a loan first entered into repayment on or
before July 1, 2000; when the borrower
is otherwise eligible for, but has not
successfully applied for, a closed school
discharge; or when the borrower
attended an institution that lost its title
IV eligibility due to a high cohort
default rate (CDR), if the borrower was
included in the cohort whose debt was
used to calculate the CDR or rates that
were the basis for the institution’s loss
of eligibility (§ 682.403).
Costs and Benefits: As further detailed
in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA),
the proposed regulations would specify
the Secretary’s authority to grant
waivers that would have significant
effects on borrowers, the Department,
and taxpayers. For borrowers for whom
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
27565
the Secretary chooses to exercise his
authority, the draft rules would provide
significant benefits by waiving all or a
portion of their repayment obligations.
In cases where the Secretary decides to
waive the entire outstanding balance of
a loan, borrowers receiving such
waivers would benefit from no longer
having to repay their debt and no longer
being at risk of delinquency or default.
The debts that could be waived in their
entirety under this proposed NPRM
have the following characteristics: they
are generally older; otherwise eligible
for forgiveness, but the borrower has not
currently enrolled in or successfully
applied to receive relief; or were taken
out to attend programs or institutions
that failed to provide sufficient financial
value as indicated by certain outcomes
and conditions. Borrowers who may
receive a waiver of some of their loan
balances would benefit by seeing their
total outstanding balance reduced,
which would help with their ability to
repay their loans in full in a reasonable
period of time.
The Department would also benefit if
the Secretary chose to exercise his
discretion to issue waivers proposed in
these draft rules. These benefits would
largely come from no longer incurring
costs to service or collect on loans that
are unlikely to be otherwise repaid in
full in a reasonable period.
The costs in this rule would largely
come from the transfers between the
Department and borrowers that would
occur if the Secretary chose to use his
discretion to issue waivers. There would
also be some administrative costs borne
by the Department to implement the
proposed regulations. As detailed in
Table 4.1 of the RIA, the net budget
impacts across all loan cohorts through
2034 for each of the proposed changes
are estimated to be as follows:
• $13.8 billion for the provision
related to time since the loan first
entered repayment (§ 30.83).
• $8.6 billion for the provision related
to borrowers who are eligible for
forgiveness based upon a repayment
plan (§ 30.84).
• $15 million for the provision
related to borrowers who took out loans
during cohorts that caused a school to
lose access to aid due to high cohort
default rates (CDRs) as described in
§ 30.86.
• $7.6 billion for the provision related
to borrowers who are eligible for a
closed school loan discharge but have
not successfully applied (§ 30.85).
• $27.2 billion for the provision
related to borrowers who attended a
gainful employment program that lost
access to aid or closed (§§ 30.86 through
30.88).
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
27566
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
• $11.0 billion for the provision
related to borrowers whose current
balance exceeds the amount owed upon
entering repayment and are on IDR plan
with income below certain thresholds
(§ 30.81).
• $62.1 billion for the provision
related to borrowers whose current
balance exceeds the amount owed upon
entering repayment (§ 30.82).
• $17.1 billion for the provisions
related to borrowers with commercial
FFEL loans that first entered repayment
25 years ago; who are eligible for a
closed school discharge but have not
applied; or who received loans to attend
a school that lost access to aid due to
high CDRs (682.403).
Invitation to Comment: We invite you
to submit comments regarding these
proposed regulations. For your
comments to have maximum effect in
developing the final regulations, we
urge you to clearly identify the specific
section or sections of the proposed
regulations that each of your comments
addresses and to arrange your comments
in the same order as the proposed
regulations. The Department will not
accept comments submitted after the
comment period closes. Please submit
your comments only once so that we do
not receive duplicate copies.
The following tips are meant to help
you prepare your comments and
provide a basis for the Department to
respond to issues raised in your
comments in the notice of final
regulations (NFR):
• Be concise but support your claims.
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible and avoid using profanity.
• Refer to specific sections and
subsections of the proposed regulations
throughout your comments, particularly
in any headings that are used to
organize your submission.
• Explain why you agree or disagree
with the proposed regulatory text and
support these reasons with data-driven
evidence, including the depth and
breadth of your personal or professional
experiences.
• Where you disagree with the
proposed regulatory text, suggest
alternatives, including regulatory
language, and your rationale for the
alternative suggestion.
• Do not include personally
identifiable information (PII) such as
Social Security numbers or loan account
numbers for yourself or for others in
your submission. Should you include
any PII in your comment, such
information may be posted publicly.
• Do not include any information that
directly identifies or could identify
other individuals or that permits readers
to identify other individuals. Your
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
comment may not be posted publicly if
it includes PII about other individuals.
Mass Writing Campaigns: In instances
where individual submissions appear to
be duplicates or near duplicates of
comments prepared as part of a writing
campaign, the Department will post one
representative sample comment along
with the total comment count for that
campaign to Regulations.gov. The
Department will consider these
comments along with all other
comments received.
In instances where individual
submissions are bundled together
(submitted as a single document or
packaged together), the Department will
post all of the substantive comments
included in the submissions along with
the total comment count for that
document or package to
Regulations.gov. A well-supported
comment is often more informative to
the agency than multiple form letters.
Public Comments: The Department
invites you to submit comments on all
aspects of the proposed regulatory
language specified in this NPRM in
§§ 30.1, 30.9, 30.20, 30.23, 30.25, 30.27,
30.29, 30.30, 30.33, 30.62, 30.70, 30.80–
30.89, and 682.403, the Regulatory
Impact Analysis, and Paperwork
Reduction Act sections.
The Department may, at its discretion,
decide not to post or to withdraw
certain comments and other materials
that are computer-generated. Comments
containing the promotion of commercial
services or products and spam will be
removed.
We may not address comments
outside of the scope of these proposed
regulations in the NFR. Generally,
comments that are outside of the scope
of these proposed regulations are
comments that do not discuss the
content or impact of the proposed
regulations or the Department’s
evidence or reasons for the proposed
regulations, which includes any
comments related to the Department’s
negotiated rulemaking for borrowers
experiencing hardship.
Comments that are submitted after the
comment period closes will not be
posted to Regulations.gov or addressed
in the NFR.
Comments containing personal threats
will not be posted to Regulations.gov
and may be referred to the appropriate
authorities.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders
12866, 13563, 14094 and their overall
requirement of reducing regulatory
burden that might result from these
proposed regulations. Please let us
know of any further ways we could
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
reduce potential costs or increase
potential benefits while preserving the
effective and efficient administration of
the Department’s programs and
activities.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect public comments about
these proposed regulations by accessing
Regulations.gov.
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will
provide an appropriate accommodation
or auxiliary aid to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for these proposed regulations. If
you want to schedule an appointment
for this type of accommodation or
auxiliary aid, please contact the
Information Technology Accessibility
Program Help Desk at ITAPSupport@
ed.gov to help facilitate.
Background
Section 432(a) of the HEA describes
the legal powers and responsibilities of
the Secretary of Education that are
relevant to this rulemaking. In
particular, section 432(a)(6) provides
that, ‘‘in the performance of, and with
respect to, the functions, powers and
duties, vested in him by this part, the
Secretary may enforce, pay,
compromise, waive, or release any right,
title, claim, lien, or demand, however
acquired, including any equity or any
right of redemption.’’ These provisions
apply to the FFEL, Direct Loan 4 and
HEAL programs.5
The Department’s statutory waiver
authority dates back to the enactment of
4 Section 432(a)(6) is in, and explicitly applies to,
Part B, which establishes the FFEL program. In
creating the Direct Loan program, Congress
established parity between the FFEL and Direct
Loan program, providing that Federal Direct Loans
‘‘have the same terms, conditions, and benefits as
loans made to borrowers’’ under the FFEL program.
20 U.S.C. 1087a(b)(2). See Sweet v. Cardona, 641
F.Supp.3d 814, 823–825 (ND Cal., 2022);
Weingarten v. DOE, 468 F.Supp.3d 322, 328 (D.D.C.
2020); McCain v. US, 2011 WL 2469828 (Ct.Cl.
2011). The legislative history of the Direct Loan
program shows that 20 U.S.C. 1087a(b)(2) is broadly
read to apply the provisions of the FFEL statutory
provisions to Direct Loan except as provided by
statute or inconsistent with the different structure
of the Direct Loan program. For example, the Direct
Loan program provides total and permanent
disability discharges, closed school loan discharges
and forbearances to borrowers although none of
those are mentioned in the Direct Loan statutory
provisions.
5 When transferring the HEAL loan program to the
Department, Congress explicitly stated that the
Secretary’s powers with respect to collecting FFEL
loans extend to HEAL loans. See Division H, title
V, section 525(d) of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113–76)
(Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014). The
Secretary’s waiver authority under section 432(a)(6)
of the HEA extends to HEAL loans.
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
the Higher Education Act in 1965.6 The
Department has historically viewed its
waiver authority as permitting the
Secretary to waive the Department’s
right to require repayment of a debt 7
when doing so advances the goals of the
title IV programs and functions, while
also aligning with the HEA’s overall
statutory parameters and principles.
Having such bounded flexibility is
critical for the Department’s
administration of the comprehensive
and complex student loan programs
wherein there are unforeseen challenges
that arise and, absent waiver, such
challenges could interfere with the
Secretary’s ability to effectively and
efficiently administer the title IV
programs.
The Department’s waiver authority
operates within the context of the HEA’s
goals and also the principles that govern
waiver more broadly. Some agencies
that exercise waiver authority consider
whether collection of debts would be
against equity and good conscience or
the best interest of the United States,
thereby implicating general principles
of government debt collection. Agencies
have also articulated numerous factors
that may weigh in favor of waiving an
individual’s debt, including when
collection would defeat the purpose of
the benefit program or impose financial
hardship, among other considerations.
On June 30, 2023, the Department
announced that it would conduct a
negotiated rulemaking process to
specify the Secretary’s use of the
authority to waive loan debts under
section 432(a) of the HEA. This NPRM
reflects regulations discussed during
that process and would allow the
Secretary to address significant
challenges identified with student loan
repayment that implicate considerations
of equity and fairness, as well as a
borrower’s inability to repay their loans
in full within a reasonable period or
circumstances where the costs of
enforcing the debt exceed the expected
benefits of continued collection. In
particular, this NPRM focuses on issues
related to circumstances—
• When borrowers’ balances have
grown beyond what they originally
owed at the start of repayment.
• When loans first entered repayment
at least two decades ago.
• When a borrower is eligible for
forgiveness or a discharge opportunity
but has not successfully applied for
such relief or enrolled in the repayment
6 See Public Law 89–29, 79 Stat. 1246 (Nov. 8,
1965).
7 Waiving the Department’s right to repayment of
all or part of a debt correspondingly releases the
borrower of further liability on account of all or part
of that debt.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
plan that would provide that forgiveness
or discharge opportunity.
• When a borrower received loans for
attendance in a program or at an
institution that has since lost access to
Federal aid because it failed to meet
required student outcomes standards,
was subject to an action by the Secretary
due to failing to provide sufficient
financial value or closed after failing
required student outcomes metrics or
the initiation of a Secretarial action
process.
These proposed provisions account
for particular challenges facing
individual borrowers, while also
recognizing that many borrowers are
similarly situated in experiencing such
circumstances. The Department has a
longstanding view and practice of
providing appropriate relief when it
identifies specific circumstances that
warrant relief and those circumstances
affect multiple borrowers. Such relief,
on an automated or individual basis, is
appropriate when such individuals’
circumstances share the features
relevant for determining relief. This
approach comports with the HEA’s
statutory requirements and can also
help to improve administrative
efficiency and provide consistency
across borrowers.
Public Participation
On July 6, 2023, the Department
published a notice in the Federal
Register (88 FR 43069) announcing our
intent to establish a negotiated
rulemaking committee to prepare
proposed regulations pertaining to the
Secretary’s authority under section
432(a) of the HEA, which relates to the
modification, waiver, or compromise of
loans.
On July 18, 2023, the Department held
a virtual public hearing at which
individuals and representatives of
interested organizations provided
advice and recommendations relating to
the topic of proposed regulations on the
modification, waiver, or compromise of
loans. The Department has significantly
engaged the public in developing this
NPRM, including through review of oral
comments made by the public during
the public hearing and written
comments submitted between July 6,
2023, and July 20, 2023. You may view
the written comments submitted in
response to the July 6, 2023, Federal
Register notice on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at Regulations.gov,
within docket ID ED–2023–OPE–0123.
Instructions for finding comments are
also available on the site under ‘‘FAQ.’’
Transcripts of the public hearings may
be accessed at https://www2.ed.gov/
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
27567
policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/
2023/.
The Department also held three
negotiated rulemaking sessions of two
days each. During each daily negotiated
rulemaking session, we provided an
opportunity for public comment and
expanded that time to one hour for the
second and third sessions. The
Department held a fourth two-day
session in February 2024 to discuss the
separate issue of possible hardship
criteria for discharge and the public had
an opportunity to comment on the first
day of that session. Additionally, nonFederal negotiators shared feedback
from their stakeholders with the
negotiating committee.
Negotiated Rulemaking
Section 492 of the HEA, 20 U.S.C.
1098a, requires the Secretary to obtain
public involvement in the development
of proposed regulations affecting
programs authorized by title IV of the
HEA. After obtaining extensive input
and recommendations from the public,
including individuals and
representatives of groups involved in
the title IV, HEA programs, the
Secretary, in most cases, must engage in
the negotiated rulemaking process
before publishing proposed regulations
in the Federal Register. If negotiators
reach consensus on the proposed
regulations, the Department agrees to
publish without substantive alteration a
defined group of regulations on which
the negotiators reached consensus—
unless the Secretary reopens the process
or provides a written explanation to the
participants stating why the Secretary
has decided to depart from the
agreement reached during negotiations.
Further information on the negotiated
rulemaking process can be found at:
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/
reg/hearulemaking/2023/.
On August 31, 2023, the Department
published a notice in the Federal
Register 8 announcing its intention to
establish the Committee to prepare
proposed regulations for the title IV,
HEA programs. The notice set forth a
schedule for Committee meetings and
requested nominations for individual
negotiators to serve on the negotiating
committee. In the notice, we announced
the topics that the Committee would
address.
The Committee included the
following members, representing their
respective constituencies:
• Civil Rights Organizations: Wisdom
Cole, NAACP, and India Heckstall
(alternate), Center for Law and Social
Policy.
8 88
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
FR 60163 (August 31, 2023).
17APP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
27568
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
• Legal Assistance Organizations that
Represent Students or Borrowers: Kyra
Taylor, National Consumer Law Center,
and Scott Waterman (alternate), Student
Loan Committee of the National
Association of Chapter 13 Trustees.
• State Officials, including State
higher education executive officers,
State authorizing agencies, and State
regulators of institutions of higher
education: Lane Thompson, Oregon
DCBS—Division of Financial
Regulation, and Amber Gallup
(alternate), New Mexico Higher
Education Department.
• State Attorneys General: Yael
Shavit, Office of the Massachusetts
Attorney General, and Josh Divine
(alternate), Missouri Attorney General’s
Office who withdrew from the
committee during the third session.
• Public Institutions of Higher
Education, Including Two-Year and
Four-Year Institutions: Melissa Kunes,
The Pennsylvania State University, and
J.D. LaRock (alternate), North Shore
Community College.
• Private Nonprofit Institutions of
Higher Education: Angelika Williams,
University of San Francisco, and Susan
Teerink (alternate), Marquette
University.
• Proprietary Institutions: Kathleen
Dwyer, Galen College of Nursing, and
Belen Gonzalez (alternate), Mech-Tech
College.
• Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, Tribal Colleges and
Universities, and Minority Serving
Institutions (institutions of higher
education eligible to receive Federal
assistance under title III, parts A and F,
and title V of the HEA): Sandra Boham,
Salish Kootenai College, and Carol
Peterson (alternate), Langston
University.
• Federal Family Education Loan
(FFEL) Lenders, Servicers, or Guaranty
Agencies: Scott Buchanan, Student Loan
Servicing Alliance, and Benjamin Lee
(alternate), Ascendium Education
Solutions, Inc.
• Student Loan Borrowers Who
Attended Programs of Two Years or
Less: Ashley Pizzuti, San Joaquin Delta
College, and David Ramirez (alternate),
Pasadena City College.
• Student Loan Borrowers Who
Attended Four-Year Programs: Sherrie
Gammage, The University of New
Orleans, and Sarah Christa Butts
(alternate), University of Maryland.
• Student Loan Borrowers Who
Attended Graduate Programs: Richard
Haase, State University of New York at
Stony Brook, and Dr. Jalil Bishop
(alternate), University of California, Los
Angeles.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
• Currently Enrolled Postsecondary
Education Students: Jada Sanford,
Stephen F. Austin University, and
Jordan Nellums (alternate), University of
Texas.
• Consumer Advocacy Organizations:
Jessica Ranucci, New York Legal
Assistance Group, and Ed Boltz
(alternate), Law Offices of John T.
Orcutt, P.C.
• Individuals with Disabilities or
Organizations Representing Them: John
Whitelaw, Community Legal Aid
Society Inc., and Waukecha Wilkerson
(alternate), Sacramento State University.
• U.S. Military Service Members,
Veterans, or Groups Representing Them:
Vincent Andrews, Veteran. Originally
the alternate, Mr. Andrews became the
primary negotiator for this constituency
group after Michael Jones withdrew
from the Committee.
• Federal Negotiator: Tamy
Abernathy, U.S. Department of
Education.
At its first meeting, the Committee
reached agreement on its protocols and
proposed agenda. The protocols
provided, among other things, that the
Committee would operate by consensus.
The protocols defined consensus as no
dissent by any negotiator of the
Committee for the committee to be
considered to have reached agreement
and noted that consensus votes would
be taken on each separate part of the
proposed rules.
The Committee reviewed and
discussed the Department’s drafts of
regulatory language and alternative
language and suggestions proposed by
negotiators.
At its third meeting in December
2023, the Committee reached consensus
on proposed regulations addressing the
Secretary’s authority to waive loan
debts—when a loan is eligible for
forgiveness based upon repayment plan
but the borrower is not currently
enrolled in such plan; based upon
Secretarial actions; following a closure
prior to Secretarial actions; or obtained
for attendance in closed GE programs
with high debt-to-earnings rates or low
median earnings. In addition, the
Committee reached consensus on two
provisions for waivers that would apply
only to FFEL Program loans held by a
loan holder or guaranty agency: Those
based on a determination that a
borrower has not successfully applied
for a closed school discharge but
otherwise meets the eligibility
requirements for such a discharge, and
cases where a borrower received a loan
for attendance at an institution that lost
title IV eligibility due to high CDRs.
This NPRM includes proposed
regulations on these consensus items,
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
identified in the summary of proposed
regulations section, as well as the
remaining items on the Committee’s
agenda, summarized generally above.
The Department convened a fourth
session of the negotiating committee on
February 22 and 23, 2024, focused on
discussing proposed regulations related
to possible waivers for borrowers facing
hardship. Proposed regulations for
waivers for hardship are not included in
this NPRM.
For more information on the
negotiated rulemaking sessions,
including the work of the
Subcommittee, please visit: https://
www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/
hearulemaking/2023/.
Summary of Proposed Changes
These proposed regulations would—
• Modify §§ 30.70(a)(1) and
30.70(c)(1) to specify that, when
compromising a debt or when
terminating or suspending collection of
a debt, the Secretary may use the
Federal Claims Collection Standards
(FCCS).
• Add § 30.80 specifying the
Secretary’s authority to waive all or part
of any debts owed to the Department,
including, but not limited to, waivers
under §§ 30.81 through 30.88.
• Add § 30.81 specifying the
Secretary’s authority to provide a onetime waiver of the amount by which the
borrower’s current loan has an
outstanding principal balance exceeding
the amount owed when the loan first
entered repayment if they are enrolled
in an IDR plan and their income is less
than or equal to $120,000 if the
borrower’s filing status is single or
married filing separately; $180,000 if the
borrower’s filing status is head of
household; or $240,000 if their tax filing
status is married filing jointly or
qualifying surviving spouse.
• Add § 30.82 specifying the
Secretary’s authority to provide a onetime waiver of the lesser of $20,000 or
the amount by which a borrower’s
current loan balance exceeds the
balance owed when the borrower
entered repayment.
• Add § 30.83 specifying the
Secretary’s authority to waive the
outstanding balance when a borrower
who only has student loans for the
borrower’s undergraduate studies first
entered repayment on or before July 1,
2005 (20 years) or on or before July 1,
2000 (25 years) when a borrower has
student loans other than loans for the
borrower’s undergraduate studies.
• Add § 30.84 specifying the
Secretary’s authority to waive the
outstanding balance of a loan when a
borrower is not currently enrolled in an
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
IDR plan, but otherwise meets the
criteria for forgiveness under an IDR
plan.
• Add § 30.85 specifying the
Secretary’s authority to waive the
outstanding balance of a loan when a
borrower has not applied for, or not
successfully applied for, any loan
discharge, cancellation, or forgiveness
opportunity under parts 682 or 685, but
otherwise meets the eligibility criteria
for discharge, cancellation, or
forgiveness.
• Add § 30.86 specifying the
Secretary’s authority to waive the
outstanding balance of a loan obtained
to attend an institution or program
where the Secretary or other authorized
Department official has issued a final
decision, denial of recertification, or
determination that terminates or
otherwise ends its title IV eligibility due
at least in part to the institution’s or
program’s failure to meet required
accountability standards based on
student outcomes or to its failure to
provide sufficient financial value to
students.
• Add § 30.87 specifying the
Secretary’s authority to waive the
outstanding balance of a loan obtained
to attend a program or an institution
that closed and the Secretary has
determined the institution or program
has not met for at least one year an
accountability standard based on
student outcomes; or failed to provide
sufficient financial value to students
and was subject to a program review,
investigation, or any other Department
action that remained unresolved at the
time of closure.
• Add § 30.88 specifying the
Secretary’s authority to waive the
outstanding balance of a loan received
by a borrower associated with
enrollment in a GE program that has
closed and prior to closure either had a
high debt-to-earning rate or low median
earnings, or was at a GE program where
the Department did not produce debt-toearnings and earnings premium
measures but the institution closed and
prior to the closure received a majority
of funds from programs with high debtto-earnings or low median earnings.
• Add § 682.403(a) outlining the
procedures under which the Secretary
determines that a FFEL Program loan
held by a lender or guaranty agency
qualifies for a waiver, the waiver claim
is processed, and the Secretary grants
the waiver.
• Add § 682.403(b)(1) specifying the
Secretary’s authority to waive the
outstanding balance of a FFEL Program
loan if the loan first entered repayment
in 2000 or earlier.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
• Add § 682.403(b)(2) specifying the
Secretary’s authority to waive the
outstanding balance of a FFEL Program
loan if the borrower has not applied for,
or not successfully applied for, but
otherwise meets the eligibility
requirements for a closed school
discharge.
• Add § 682.403(b)(3) specifying the
Secretary’s authority to waive the
outstanding balance of a FFEL Program
loan if the loan was received for
attendance at an institution that lost its
eligibility to participate in a title IV,
HEA program because of its high CDRs.
• Add §§ 682.403(c), 682.403(d), and
682.403(e) describing the waiver claim
filing process for a lender, guaranty
agency, and the Department.
• Add § 682.403(f) specifying that if
the conditions for a waiver are met but
the loan has been repaid by a Federal
Consolidation Loan that has an
outstanding balance, the Secretary may
waive the portion of the outstanding
balance of the consolidation loan
attributable to such a loan once the loan
has been assigned to the Secretary.
• Make conforming changes to
§§ 30.1(c), 30.62(a), and 30.70(e)(1)
based on revisions to the sections noted
above.
Significant Proposed Regulations
We discuss substantive issues under
the sections of the proposed regulations
to which they pertain. Generally, we do
not address proposed regulatory
provisions that are technical or
otherwise minor in effect. For each
section of the regulations discussed, we
include the statutory citation, the
current regulations being revised (if
applicable), the new proposed
regulatory text, and the reasons for why
we proposed to add new regulatory text
or revise the existing regulatory text.
34 Part 30—Debt Collection
Subparts A, C, E, and F (§§ 30.1(c),
30.62(a), 30.70(a)(1), 30.70(c)(1) and
30.70(e)(1))
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20
U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides that in the
performance of, and with respect to, the
functions, powers, and duties, vested in
him by this part, the Secretary may
enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or
release any right, title, claim, lien, or
demand, however acquired, including
any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: Section 30.1(c)
contains the procedures that the
Secretary may use in collecting on a
debt owed to the United States.
Section 30.62(a) provides that for a
debt based on a loan, the Secretary may
refrain from collecting interest or
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
27569
charging administrative costs or
penalties to the extent that compromise
of these amounts is appropriate under
the standards for compromise of a debt
contained in 31 CFR part 902, which
were formerly contained in 4 CFR part
103.
Sections 30.70(a)(1) and 30.70(c)(1)
specify that the Secretary uses the
standards in the FCCS to determine
whether compromise of a debt, or
suspension or termination of a debt, is
appropriate.
Section 30.70(e)(1) provides that the
Secretary may compromise a debt in any
amount or suspend or terminate
collection of a debt in any amount, if the
debt arises under the FFEL Program
authorized under title IV, part B, of the
HEA, the Direct Loan Program
authorized under title IV, part D of the
HEA, or the Perkins Loan Program
authorized under title IV, part E, of the
HEA.
Proposed Regulations: These
proposed regulations would identify
certain conditions under which the
Secretary may waive debt, identify the
loan programs eligible for such waivers,
clarify the existing compromise
provisions, correct outdated references,
and remove obsolete references. These
regulations do not alter the scope of the
Secretary’s authority under Section
432(a) of the HEA. Relatedly, the nonexhaustive waiver provisions neither
limit the Secretary’s discretion to waive
debt in other circumstances permitted
under Section 432(a) nor do they require
the Secretary to undergo rulemaking
before taking any action authorized
under Section 432(a). Nevertheless, by
providing greater clarity regarding the
Secretary’s waiver authority, these
regulations are beneficial to inform the
public about how the Secretary may
exercise waiver in a consistent manner
to provide appropriate relief to
borrowers in accordance with the
provisions and purposes of the HEA.
Proposed § 30.1(c)(7) would provide
that the Secretary may waive repayment
of a debt under subpart G of 34 CFR part
30. Proposed § 30.62(a) would add to
the current compromise provisions
language that would allow the Secretary
to waive the collection of interest or
charging administrative costs or
penalties on a loan in accordance with
§ 30.80. Proposed §§ 30.70(a)(1) and
30.70(c)(1) would specify that, when
compromising a debt or when
suspending or terminating a debt, the
Secretary ‘‘may’’ use the FCCS.
Proposed § 30.70(e)(1) would add HEAL
Program loans to the list of loan types
for which the Secretary may
compromise a debt or suspend or
terminate collection of a debt.
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
27570
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Technical corrections updating and
clarifying various references and
provisions contained in subparts A, C,
E, and F of part 30 would also be made.
In addition, severability provisions
would be added to these subparts as
new §§ 30.9, 30.39, 30.69, and 30.79.
The severability provisions would
specify that if any provision of a part is
held to be invalid, the remaining
provisions would not be affected.
Reasons: The current regulations in
part 30 describe the policies and
procedures that the Secretary uses to
collect on a debt owed to the
Department. The Department is
proposing a new subpart G to part 30
which would provide greater specificity
regarding the Secretary’s discretion to
waive Federal student loan debt. This
greater specificity will allow the
Department to take more transparent
steps that help to consistently alleviate
the significant financial burden Federal
student loans have become for
struggling or vulnerable borrowers by
waiving some or all of their outstanding
loan balances. Such waivers would
either reduce monthly payments, total
amounts owed, or both. The proposed
new language in subpart G would
require conforming changes to some of
the existing regulatory language in part
30.
The proposed revision to § 30.1(c)(7)
is necessary to provide a cross-reference
to proposed subpart G and the proposed
revision to § 30.62(a) is necessary to
provide a cross-reference to proposed
§ 30.80.
In 2016, the Department revised
§ 30.70 to reflect a series of statutory
changes that expanded the Secretary’s
authority to compromise, or suspend or
terminate the collection of, debts.9 In
particular, the Department wanted to
highlight the ability of the agency to
resolve debts of less than $100,000
without needing to obtain approval from
the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and
to include the ability of DOJ to seek
review of resolving claims of more than
$1 million. But the inclusion of this
provision has created questions around
whether the Department’s compromise,
suspension, and termination authority is
strictly bound by FCCS standards. The
Department’s view is that it is not. To
begin, The Federal Claims Collection
Act (FCCA) and the FCCS regulations do
not, by their own terms, apply to the
Department’s student loan programs.10
9 See 81 FR 39330 (June 16, 2016); 81 FR 75926
(November 1, 2016).
10 When the FCCA was enacted in 1966, it stated
that ‘‘[n]othing in this Act shall increase or
diminish the existing authority of the head of an
agency to litigate claims, or diminish his existing
authority to settle, compromise, or close claims.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
In addition, the Department’s own
regulations also do not strictly bind the
Secretary to the FCCS. The history of
revisions to 34 CFR 30.70 reflects that
it has been revised over time to reflect
new requirements and authorities but
has consistently recognized the
Secretary’s broad authority to
compromise student loan debts ‘‘in any
amount.’’ Reading § 30.70 as subjecting
the Secretary’s authority to the FCCS
requirements would be contrary to the
stated purpose of the 2016 amendments,
which were intended to ‘‘reflect a series
of statutory changes that have expanded
the Secretary’s authority to compromise,
or suspend or terminate the collection
of, debts’’ (emphasis added).11 The
proposed changes to §§ 30.70(a)(1) and
30.70(c)(1) would clarify that the
Secretary’s compromise, termination,
and suspension authority remain broad
and are not restricted by the FCCA and
FCCS.
The addition of HEAL Program loans
to § 30.70(e)(1) would clarify that the
Secretary has the same authority to
compromise, suspend, or terminate a
HEAL loan debt as in the Direct Loan,
FFEL, and Perkins loan programs. The
negotiating committee agreed to add
HEAL Program loans to § 30.70(e)(1) and
raised no specific objections to the
proposed conforming changes or
technical corrections. Although there
were no specific objections to the
proposed revisions to the regulations in
subparts A, C, E, and F of part 30, the
Committee did not reach consensus on
these proposed changes.
The severability provisions we
propose to add as new §§ 30.9, 30.39,
30.69, 30.79, and 30.89 are intended to
clarify that each regulatory provision in
these subparts stands on its own. For
the severability sections in subparts A
through F of part 30, these additions
reflect that the subcomponents of each
section, as well as the sections
themselves, are distinct. For instance,
subpart C lays out the provisions related
to administrative offset. The process in
§ 30.21 that addresses when the
Secretary may offset a debt and the
provisions regarding borrower notice in
Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966, Public Law
89–508, 4, 80 Stat. 308 (1966). And the FCCS
specifically provides that it does not ‘‘preclude [ ]
agency disposition of any claim under statutes and
implementing regulations other than [the FCCA],’’
and that ‘‘[i]n such cases, the laws and regulations
that are specifically applicable to claims collection
activities of a particular agency generally take
precedence.’’ 31 CFR 900.4. The FCCA and FCCS
do not, on their own terms, limit the Secretary’s
authority because the HEA endows the Secretary
with separate and independent authority to
compromise a debt, or suspend or terminate
collection of a debt. See § 1082(a).
11 81 FR 39369 (June 16, 2016).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 30.22 are separate, and those, in turn,
are separate from the provisions in
§ 30.25 related to how an oral hearing
may occur.
The severability provision in § 30.89
reflects that the different waivers
proposed in subpart G each address a
different set of circumstances in which
the Department is concerned that
borrowers may not be able to repay their
loans within a reasonable period. This
severability language also acknowledges
that each of these proposed waivers
have their own distinct rationale for
their inclusion, and the effects would
vary. For instance, some sections in
subpart G would result in a complete
waiver of a borrower’s full remaining
balance, while others would only result
in a partial waiver. Moreover, as
discussed elsewhere in this rule, there
are also provisions within sections
where if either element of this provision
were invalidated by a reviewing court,
the element that stayed in effect would
continue to provide important relief to
borrowers. This, for instance, can be
seen in proposed §§ 30.81 and 30.82.
Proposed § 682.403 is already covered
by an existing severability provision in
§ 682.424.
These provisions were not subject to
a consensus check on the part of the
negotiators, although none of the
negotiators raised objections to adding
these provisions.
Subpart G
§ 30.80 Waiver of Federal Student
Loan debts.
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20
U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides that in the
performance of, and with respect to, the
functions, powers, and duties, vested in
him by this part, the Secretary may
enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or
release any right, title, claim, lien, or
demand, however acquired, including
any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 30.80 would specify the Secretary’s
authority to waive all or part of any
Department-held FFEL Program loan,
William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan,
Federal Perkins Loan, and HEAL Loan
debts owed to the Department under the
conditions included in, but not limited
to, §§ 30.81 through 30.88.
Reasons: Proposed new subpart G to
part 30, which includes sections
§§ 30.80–30.89, would provide greater
specificity regarding the Secretary’s
discretion to waive Federal student loan
debt to alleviate the significant financial
burden of student loans on borrowers
and their families. The regulations in
part 30 pertain to debts owed to the
Department, therefore proposed § 30.80
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
would only apply to student loans held
by the Department. This includes FFEL
Program loans that have been assigned
to the Department, as well as Perkins
loans and HEAL loans in default. It also
includes consolidation loans that repaid
a FFEL, Perkins, or HEAL loan. Waivers
specific to FFEL Program loans held by
private lenders or managed by guaranty
agencies would be provided under
proposed § 682.403 of the FFEL Program
regulations. The proposed regulations
for § 682.403 are discussed later in this
NPRM.
Proposed § 30.80 provides an
introduction to subpart G and explains
the types of loans covered by this
subpart. The Department proposes to
include all the types of Federal student
loans held by the Department, including
Direct Loans, FFEL Loans, Perkins
Loans, and HEAL Loans because we
believe it is appropriate to consider
waivers for all the loan types managed
by the Secretary and organizationally
consider similar subject matter under
one subpart. As discussed in other
sections, not all these provisions will
apply equally to all loan types because
there are certain benefits that are not
otherwise available on all types of loans.
For example, only Direct and FFEL
Loans are eligible to be repaid under
IDR plans.
The Department believes adding
subpart G in these proposed regulations
better clarifies some circumstances in
which the Secretary may use his
existing and longstanding authority
under section 432(a) of the HEA.
Current regulations do not describe how
the Secretary uses this waiver authority.
Clarifying how this authority would be
used through these regulations would
better inform the public about how the
Secretary may exercise his waiver
authority in a consistent and equitable
manner.
Providing such specificity would also
allow the Department to highlight
circumstances where we are particularly
concerned about borrowers’ ability to
successfully repay their debt in full in
a reasonable period or where the costs
of collection are anticipated to exceed
the amount recoverable. Each of these
proposed waivers are intended to
address a variety of conditions that
borrowers may encounter where a
waiver may be appropriate. They can
and would operate independently of
each other.
The Committee reached consensus on
proposed § 30.80.
§ 30.81 Waiver when the current
balance exceeds the balance upon
entering repayment for borrowers on an
IDR plan.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20
U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides that in the
performance of, and with respect to, the
functions, powers, and duties, vested in
him by this part, the Secretary may
enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or
release any right, title, claim, lien, or
demand, however acquired, including
any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 30.81 would provide that the Secretary
may waive the amount by which each
of a borrower’s loans has a total
outstanding balance that exceeds the
amount owed upon entering repayment
if the borrower is enrolled in an IDR
plan and meets certain additional
criteria. The original balance would be
measured based upon the original
amount disbursed for loans disbursed
before January 1, 2005, and the balance
of the loans on the day after the grace
period for loans disbursed on or after
January 1, 2005. Waiver of repayment of
consolidation loans would be based
upon the original balances of the loans
repaid by the consolidation loan.
A borrower would be eligible to
receive this waiver once on their loans
if they enrolled in an IDR plan under
§§ 682.215, 685.209, or 685.221 as of a
date determined by the Secretary; and
the borrower’s adjusted gross income, or
other calculation of income as shown on
acceptable documentation,
demonstrates that the borrower’s annual
income is equal to or less than $120,000
if their tax filing status is single or
married filing separately; $180,000 if
their tax filing status is head of
household; or $240,000 if they are
married filing jointly or a qualifying
surviving spouse.
Reasons: Over the past several years,
the Department has taken several
significant steps to address the negative
effects of interest accrual and
capitalization on borrowers. Effective
July 1, 2023, the Department ceased
capitalizing interest in all situations
where it is not required by statute (87
FR 65904). This includes when a
borrower enters repayment, exits a
forbearance, leaves any IDR plan besides
Income-Based Repayment (IBR), and
enters default. In August 2023, the
Department also implemented a
provision in the SAVE plan regulations
under which the Department does not
charge any amount of accrued interest
that is not otherwise covered by a
borrower’s required payment (88 FR
43820). These changes provide
significant benefits that may help
borrowers avoid situations where they
find themselves struggling to repay their
debts because their balance has grown
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
27571
far beyond what they originally
borrowed.
The intent of the Department is to
take action on a one-time basis on a
borrower’s loans to address excessive
interest accrual on Federal student
loans. The primary drivers of this
accumulation are when borrowers make
payments on an IDR plan that do not
cover the full amount of accumulating
interest; periods of non-payment, such
as deferments, forbearances,
delinquency, and default; and interest
capitalization. Because prior to the
establishment of the Saving on A
Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan IDR
plans were the only repayment plans
where payments do not have to at least
cover accumulating monthly interest,
the Department is concerned that
borrowers owe large balances that are
higher than what they were at
repayment entry from prior enrollment
in IDR. Owing such large balances can
result in borrowers needing to repay far
more than would have been reasonably
expected by the Department, and the
borrower themselves, at the time that
the borrower entered repayment. It can
also significantly extend the amount of
time a borrower needs to repay their
loans in full. Prior to SAVE, interest
balances climbed even though
borrowers made monthly required
payments on IDR plans. Echoing
concerns and statements the Department
heard in public comments prior to the
formation of the negotiated rulemaking
committee and during the public
comment periods held on most days the
negotiated rulemaking committee met,
borrowers have reported that growing
balances while in repayment can lead to
negative psychological impacts on
borrowers who are attempting to repay
their debt but are unable to, including
that they lose hope and motivation to
repay their debt.12
Additionally, while the Department
has eliminated all non-statutorily
required instances of interest
capitalization, borrowers today owe
higher balances from previous instances
of interest capitalization. Interest
capitalization can significantly increase
what a borrower owes and extend the
time it takes to repay their loans. The
Department is concerned that such
instances are harmful to the borrower
and should therefore be corrected
retroactively by waiving the borrower’s
obligation to pay such interest accrual
after a borrower has entered repayment.
12 https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-andanalysis/reports/2020/05/borrowers-discuss-thechallenges-of-student-loan-repayment; https://
www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/indefault-and-left-behind/.
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
27572
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
While the Department has addressed
the issue of balance growth for those in
IDR going forward, there are borrowers
who have spent time in repayment prior
to the implementation of these changes
who have experienced the balance of
their loans grow such that their loan
balances are now greater than what they
originally borrowed. The persistence of
those situations is a problem the
Department seeks to address. Recent
focus group reports and extensive
borrower testimony have shown that
growing loan balances lead to both
financial and psychological challenges
to successful repayment by borrowers.13
While borrowers who experienced
balance growth have a way to prevent
balance growth in the future, they still
must overcome the consequences of this
past balance growth.
Because the Department has taken
steps to address the problem of excess
interest accrual and capitalization going
forward, this provision would only be
applied once per a borrower’s loans to
eliminate balance growth for all but the
highest income borrowers enrolled in an
IDR plan, allowing those who
experienced this situation to
successfully make progress on repaying
their debts. Providing targeted relief in
this manner would be consistent with
the general principles of Federal debt
collection, which permit agencies to
provide relief to borrowers when there
is evidence the agency would not
otherwise be able to collect the debt in
full within a reasonable time.14
The Department proposes to provide
the benefits in § 30.81 only to borrowers
enrolled in IDR plans for both
operational and administrative reasons.
First, borrowers in IDR plans have
demonstrated their concern that they
cannot repay their loans on the standard
repayment timeline, making them an
important group for the Department to
consider for relief. Second, until the
creation of the SAVE plan, borrowers on
IDR plans frequently experienced
balance growth from accruing interest,
which this policy seeks to address.
Specifically, the nature of the IDR plans’
13 See 87 FR 41878 (July 13, 2022); 87 FR 65904
(November 1, 2022); 88 FR 43820 (July 10, 2023).
See also https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researchand-analysis/reports/2020/05/borrowers-discussthe-challenges-of-student-loan-repayment; https://
www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/indefault-and-left-behind/.
14 See 31 U.S.C. 3711(a)(3). In addition, Congress
permitted ED to compromise or collect debt
pursuant to the standards articulated by ED’s own
debt collection regulations or Treasury’s debt
collection regulations, see 31 U.S.C. 3711(d), which
similarly permit relief where there is evidence the
agency would not collect the debt in full within a
reasonable period of time. See, e.g., 31 CFR
902.2(a)(2); 34 CFR 30.70(a)(1) (referencing 31 CFR
part 902).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
lower monthly payments meant
borrowers’ payments often did not cover
monthly interest. Borrowers in the past
who did not recertify their income
could also be removed from an IDR plan
at which point any unpaid interest
would be capitalized. For both reasons,
it is reasonable for the Department to
focus its resources on providing relief to
borrowers on IDR plans to address the
current negative effects of prior interest
accumulation and potentially
capitalization. In addition,
administrative considerations weigh in
favor of limiting the policy to borrowers
in IDR because the Department has data
that will allow it to verify that
borrowers fall below the income cap.
The Department proposes to limit this
benefit to borrowers with income below
certain levels to benefit only borrowers
for whom their past instances of balance
growth may have a greater possible
negative effect on their ability to repay
their debts in the future. The SAVE
plan’s interest benefit works in a similar
manner. As a borrower’s income rises,
their payment covers a greater amount
of accumulating monthly interest.
Eventually, for any given debt level
there is an income amount at which a
borrower’s payment will equal or
exceed accumulating monthly interest.
At that point, the borrower does not
derive any assistance from the SAVE
plan’s interest benefit.
The Department proposes to limit the
benefit in this section to borrowers
whose incomes are at or below a certain
threshold. To determine this threshold,
the Department looked at the income
level at which a borrower in a singleperson household would have a
calculated payment on the SAVE plan
that is sufficient to pay off all the
interest accumulating on a monthly
basis if their debt level was equal to
$138,000 which is the maximum
amount of Federal loans a borrower can
take out for undergraduate and graduate
education without taking out any PLUS
loans. We exclude amounts related to
PLUS loans because they do not have an
absolute dollar loan limit, as they can be
obtained for up to the total cost of
attendance, less other aid received.
Because of the lack of an absolute
dollar loan limit, there are some
borrowers who have debts that are much
higher than the debt loads of the
overwhelming majority of borrowers.
We do not think it was reasonable to
anchor to such outlier amounts, and we
therefore take the conservative approach
of not including these dollar amounts.
However, typical balances for Parent
PLUS and Graduate PLUS loans are well
below the amounts contemplated
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
here.15 Using a value of $138,500 is
inclusive of over 95 percent of loan
balances in repayment. Furthermore,
Parent PLUS borrowers are only eligible
for an IDR plan if the borrower has
repaid those Parent PLUS loans through
consolidation.
We calculated income thresholds for
waiver eligibility in the following way:
First, we assumed that a borrower had
a total balance equal to the maximum
non-PLUS amount that a borrower can
receive for undergraduate and graduate
education, which is $138,500. We then
assumed that a borrower received the
maximum amount of loans for an
undergraduate dependent student
($31,000) and the remainder for
graduate school ($107,500). We did this
calculation off a dependent
undergraduate maximum because those
are the more common types of student
loan borrowers, and it allows
undergraduate loans to make up a
smaller share of the total amount
borrowed. If the independent
undergraduate limit were used, the
SAVE payment amount would decrease
due to the increased share of
undergraduate loans. Using
independent limits would produce an
unfair income amount for dependent
borrowers, while independent students
are not harmed by using the dependent
limit. In order to determine the interest
rate to use for this analysis we assigned
the unweighted average interest rate
charged on undergraduate loans from
the 2013–14 award year through the
2023–24 award year to the
undergraduate loans and the equivalent
graduate loan rate for the non-PLUS
graduate loans. We used this period to
generate an average interest rate because
prior to 2013–14 there were different
rates charged on subsidized versus
unsubsidized loans. This produced
averages of 4.3 percent for
undergraduate loans and 5.87 percent
for graduate loans. We then weighted
these interest rates by the share of the
balance owed for undergraduate and
graduate school. This resulted in an
interest rate of 5.52 percent. Next, we
used the balance amount and the
interest rate to calculate the amount of
interest that would accumulate on
$138,500 at a 5.52 percent interest rate
in one month. That amount is $637.10.
We then calculated the income that a
single person would need to earn to
have a monthly payment on SAVE equal
to $637.10. In doing this, we used the
15 For example, the average balance for a Parent
PLUS loan recipient is almost $30,000 and the
average balance for a Grad PLUS loan recipient is
about $58,000. As of Q4, 2023, see Federal Student
Aid Portfolio by Loan Type, available at: https://
studentaid.gov/data-center/student/portfolio.
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
2024 Federal Poverty Guideline (FPL)
amount of $15,060. Using those data, we
calculated that a single person who
owes the maximum non-PLUS amount
would have to make more than $119,971
to cease receiving an interest benefit on
SAVE. We then rounded that amount to
the nearest $1,000, which yields a
threshold of $120,000.
The Department proposes to use a
threshold of $120,000 for borrowers
whose tax filing status is single. We
propose to adopt the same threshold for
married-filing-separately taxpayers,
mimicking many rules in the Internal
Revenue Code that treat the two filing
statuses similarly. For example, the
basic standard deduction for single and
married-filing-separate filers is the
same. We propose to use $180,000 for a
borrower whose filing status is head of
household, which mimics the treatment
under the Internal Revenue Code, in
which the standard deduction is oneand-a-half times what is used for a
single-person household (subject to
rounding rules). We propose to use two
times the amount for a single-person
household—$240,000 for borrowers
whose status is married filing jointly or
qualifying surviving spouse. This too
mirrors how the Internal Revenue Code
handles the standard deduction for
these filing statuses relative to someone
whose filing status is single.
The Department acknowledges that
this approach to establishing income
thresholds for filing statuses besides
single or married filing separately is
different from how we calculate
payments on IDR plans. For IDR plans,
we adjust payments for larger
households by using some multiplier of
the Federal Poverty Guidelines based
upon the size of the household. The
result is that a two-person household
does not have double the amount of
income protected that a single-person
household has. We think taking a
different approach here is warranted for
several reasons. The consideration
under IDR plans is about ensuring
borrowers have enough money set aside
to cover their monthly key obligations,
such as food and housing. Those items
have economies of scale, which can be
reflected in the household size
adjustment. For instance, a two-person
household may be sharing one bedroom,
meaning the per-person household cost
is not simply double that for a single
person. By contrast, this waiver is an
action that would occur once per
borrower and is not focused on their
monthly payment amount. Moreover,
because this waiver is concerned with
balance growth borrowers have
experienced during their time since
entering repayment, it is possible that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
some of this growth would have
occurred before borrowers married, had
children, or otherwise grew their
household size. For instance, the
median age at repayment entry for
borrowers is about 25, while the typical
age of first marriage is about 30 for men
and 29 for women.16
The Department is not proposing to
amend the regulations for SAVE in this
NPRM and will not consider comments
related to adjusting the payment
calculations on SAVE in response to
this NPRM.
Borrowers whose income exceeds
these thresholds would not receive a
waiver under this provision but could
have the lesser of $20,000 or the amount
by which their balance upon entering
repayment exceeds their current
outstanding balance waived under
§ 30.82.
The Department’s overall goal with
this provision is to only address balance
growth that occurred after a borrower
entered repayment. We do not propose
to address interest that accumulated
before a borrower first entered
repayment, which, prior to July 1, 2023,
was capitalized on their balance at the
end of the grace period. The
accumulation of interest while a
borrower is in school is a statutory
component of Federal Student Loans.17
However, the Department faces certain
data limitations that make it impossible
to accurately ascertain the balance upon
entering repayment for loans disbursed
before January 1, 2005. For those loans,
data regarding the balance upon the end
of the grace period is not stored in the
Department’s records. We are concerned
that attempts to approximate that
amount may not be accurate and could
result in either providing too much or
too little assistance to borrowers.
Accordingly, this provision would
provide differential treatment for loans
based upon whether they were
disbursed before or after the date by
which the Department can accurately
assess the balance owed upon
repayment entry. For loans disbursed
after January 1, 2005, we would measure
the original balance based upon the last
day of a borrower’s grace period, so that
no interest that accumulated prior to
entering repayment is included. For
loans disbursed before that date, the
Department would use the original
disbursed balance of the loan due to
operational limitations. Because the
Department does not have a valid and
reliable data point for balance at
16 Based on the American Community Survey
2022 5-year estimates of Median Age at First
Marriage.
17 See 20 U.S.C. 1077a and 1087e(b).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
27573
repayment entry for borrowers with
these older loans, we think the balance
at disbursement is the best available
data to use for loans disbursed before
January 1, 2005. This would be used
only for borrowers whose loans are 20
or more years old, which also means
that the vast majority of loans that are
that old and are still outstanding belong
to borrowers who have had long-term
struggles repaying. For instance,
Department data in the RIA that
accompanies this NPRM show that 83
percent of borrowers whose loans are at
least 20 (undergraduate debt) or 25
(graduate debt) years old have
previously experienced a default.
Moreover, to the extent borrowers with
these older loans had subsidized loans,
they would not have seen interest
accumulate before entering repayment
on those loans. These dates properly
balance the policy goals of not waiving
interest prior to repayment entry with
the operational reality of using the best
available data. Because the January 1,
2005, disbursement date creates a clear
dividing line that establishes two groups
of borrowers, one with loans disbursed
before January 1, 2005, and another with
loans disbursed after that date, if either
element of this provision were
invalidated by a reviewing court, the
element that stayed in effect would
continue to provide important relief to
borrowers.
The Committee did not reach
consensus on proposed § 30.81.
§ 30.82 Waiver when the current
balance exceeds the balance upon
entering repayment.
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20
U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides that in the
performance of, and with respect to, the
functions, powers, and duties, vested in
him by this part, the Secretary may
enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or
release any right, title, claim, lien, or
demand, however acquired, including
any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 30.82 would provide that the Secretary
may waive the lesser of $20,000 or the
amount by which a borrower’s loans
have a total outstanding balance that
exceeds the balance owed upon entering
repayment, for loans disbursed before
January 1, 2005, the balance of the loans
on the day after the grace period for
loans disbursed on or after January 1,
2005, or the total original principal
balance of all loans repaid by a Federal
Consolidation Loan or a Direct
Consolidation Loan. A borrower who
has received a waiver under § 30.81
would not be eligible for a waiver under
this provision.
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
27574
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Reasons: Proposed § 30.82 would
provide one-time relief to borrowers
who experienced balance growth. While
the Department has taken steps to
address the harms of balance growth
and interest capitalization going
forward, the recent changes do not
address past instances of balance growth
that have resulted in some borrowers
owing more than they originally did
when they entered repayment. As
explained, this balance growth
adversely affects a borrower’s ability to
pay off their loans in full within a
reasonable period. We are also
concerned that growing balances while
in repayment may lead to negative
psychological impacts on borrowers
who are attempting to repay their debt
but are unable to do so.
There are several reasons why a
borrower may have seen their loan
balance grow beyond what it was when
they entered repayment. They may have
spent time in deferments and
forbearances during which interest
accumulated on their loans. This
includes both deferments for
unemployment or economic hardship,
as well as deferments and forbearances
related to military service. Borrowers
may also have seen their balances grow
if they previously spent time on an IDR
plan during which their income-based
payment amounts were not sufficient to
repay all the monthly accumulating
interest. Borrowers may also have spent
time in which they were not repaying
their loans, including periods of
delinquency and in default.
Borrowers who accumulated
outstanding unpaid interest also may
have experienced interest capitalization
events, such as after a forbearance ends
or after they left an IDR plan, in which
outstanding interest was added onto the
loan’s principal balance. Once
capitalization occurs, borrowers then
pay interest that is calculated off that
higher principal balance, increasing the
total amount of interest they need to
repay.
The Department took steps in recent
years to avoid balance growth and in
particular to decrease the instances in
which borrowers see their unpaid
interest capitalize. Specifically, the
Department has recently taken action to
end interest capitalization where it is
not required by statute as well as to
create an interest benefit under the
SAVE plan wherein the borrower is not
charged for the remaining interest after
a payment is applied. Providing relief
through § 30.82 allows the Department
to address the current and ongoing
issues for borrowers caused by this past
balance growth.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
The Department proposes to make the
benefits of § 30.82 available to all
borrowers because we are concerned
about the negative effects of balance
growth regardless of borrowers’ past
repayment history or circumstances.
While we have proposed a separate
provision in § 30.81 that would provide
relief for borrowers who are on an IDR
plan and have incomes below certain
levels, the Department sees §§ 30.81 and
30.82 as provisions that can operate in
a separate and distinct manner from
each other. Therefore, in developing the
parameters for this provision, the
Department considered the optimal
structure for this provision as a
standalone benefit. The only interplay
between this provision and § 30.81 is
the proposed limitation in § 30.82(b)
that a borrower may not receive relief to
address balance growth under both
provisions because the Department
intends to provide one-time relief from
balance growth for a borrower if the
Secretary exercises his discretion to
grant such relief through this provision.
The Department believes it is
important to provide a benefit under
§ 30.82 that is available to all borrowers.
An automatic and universal approach is
the simplest to administer and also
avoids problems commonly seen by the
Department with application-based
benefits in which the borrowers who
would most benefit from the relief fail
to apply. The JP Morgan Chase Institute
found in 2022 that there are two
borrowers who could benefit from IDR
for every one that is enrolled.18
Similarly, the U.S. Department of the
Treasury found that 70 percent of
borrowers who were in default in 2012
would have benefitted from a reduced
payment of an IDR plan at the time.19
Providing this benefit on a broadly
applicable, automatic basis would allow
us to reach all borrowers who face the
adverse effects of balance growth and
would create a streamlined process.
However, because the Department
would provide a universal benefit, we
do not believe it would be appropriate
to provide uncapped relief. In
particular, there are borrowers who have
experienced amounts of balance growth
significantly higher than all other
borrowers who have seen their balances
grow. The Department is concerned that
waiving those excessive amounts of
balance growth would provide
unnecessary windfall benefits in which
18 www.jpmorganchase.com/institute/research/
household-debt/student-loan-income-drivenrepayment.
19 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2015.
Federal Student Loans: Education Could Do More
to Help Ensure Borrowers are Aware of Repayment
and Forgiveness Options. GAO–15–663.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
there would be significant costs
incurred to help a relatively small
number of borrowers.
We propose capping the amount of
relief at $20,000 for a borrower which
would strike the balance between
granting a level of benefits that would
provide assistance to borrowers while
not granting windfall amounts of relief.
This $20,000 amount represents the
90th percentile of the amount by which
balances exceed what borrowers
originally owed upon entering
repayment. This amount is informed by
using a statistical approach to identify
excess balance values that are dissimilar
to most other values. There are several
common ways of defining outliers in a
distribution, and we use a process here
that uses multiples of the interquartile
range, referred to as a ‘‘fence.’’ 20 The
upper inner fence is commonly defined
as the 75th percentile value plus the
interquartile range multiplied by 1.5. In
Department data, the inner fence is
about $18,500, which we round up to
$20,000 to create a simpler value to
understand.
A cap on relief under this provision
also acknowledges that generally
borrowers must have larger loan
balances in order to experience greater
amounts of balance growth, and that
typically borrowers with larger loan
balances have greater earnings potential
than those with lower loan balances.
Examples highlight the connection
between loan balance amounts and the
potential for balance growth. Consider a
borrower who owes $9,500 at an interest
rate of 4.32 percent, the maximum
amount of debt an undergraduate
student can take out in a single year and
the average interest rate for
undergraduate loans over the last 11
years. If they did not make a single
payment for 10 years their balance
would grow by $4,104. By contrast, a
borrower who owes $150,000 all in
graduate loans at an interest rate of 5.87
percent (the average graduate rate over
the last 11 years), would see their
balance grow by $88,050 if they did not
make a payment over 10 years.
Therefore, among two otherwise
similarly situated borrowers, the
borrowers who owe more, particularly
in graduate loans, will see their balance
grow faster.
Borrowers with very high balances
tend to have higher incomes than do
lower-balance borrowers. That may be
because many higher-balance borrowers
20 For more information on this approach see the
National Institute of Standards and Technology,
https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/prc/
section1/prc16.htm, or statistical textbooks such as
Ott & Longnecker, An Introduction to Statistical
Methods and Data Analysis.
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
accumulated some or most of their debt
from graduate school, and among
college-educated individuals, those with
a graduate degree generally have higher
wages than those with only an
undergraduate credential or without any
credential at all.21 A higher earning
borrower may not only have a greater
ability to pay off their debt in full in a
reasonable period, there is also a greater
likelihood that they may be on an
earnings trajectory in which their initial
earnings start out lower and then
increase over time. For instance, many
health care professions start with lower
wages until the individual completes
their residency. This earnings growth
phenomenon is something the
Department has acknowledged in other
contexts, such as in the Financial Value
Transparency and GE final regulations
in which the Department proposes to
assess the earnings of graduates from
certain programs from the period six or
seven years after completion instead of
the standard three or four years used for
most other program types. Based upon
the proposed cap of $20,000 on balance
growth, we looked at data on borrowers
who experienced balance growth to try
to understand any points where
borrowers who would receive relief
beyond that cap amount appear to have
a greater likelihood of showing their
ability to repay their debt. This analysis
included looking at factors such as the
share of borrowers with loans from
graduate school, the rate at which
borrowers received Pell Grants, and
whether students had past evidence of
default. While the Department does not
have data on borrower incomes, we
imputed income for borrowers based on
individuals with similar demographic
and educational characteristics from
Census data. This procedure is
imperfect, but we believe it provides a
reasonable approximation of income.
We found that borrowers who had less
than $20,000 of excess balance were less
likely to have gone to graduate school
and have a lower imputed income. They
21 Borrowers with professional doctoral degrees,
which include fields like medicine, pharmacy,
veterinary medicine, and law, have the highest
cumulative student loan balances among those who
have completed postsecondary education (see
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/tub/
graduate-student-loan-debt). These are also fields
that tend to have the highest wages (see for
example, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_
nat.htm). Borrowers with master’s degrees or
higher, also tend to have higher debt (see Bhutta et
al. ‘‘Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2016 to
2019: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer
Finances,’’ Federal Reserve Bulletin, 2020, 106 (5).
https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/
scf20.pdf) For research on the returns to graduate
degrees, see, for example, Altonji & Zhong (2021).
The labor market returns to advanced degrees.
Journal of Labor Economics, 39(2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
were also more likely to have received
a Pell Grant or to have experienced
student loan default. This further
confirmed our belief that preventing
windfall amounts of relief also helped
make this provision better targeted.
The Department specifically invites
feedback from the public on the
approaches considered here. In
particular, we are interested in
comments on whether to consider a
higher or lower cap on the amount of
balance growth that could be waived
and on the rationales for choosing such
caps. We also welcome feedback on
whether there should be separate waiver
policies to consider unique
circumstances of different groups of
borrowers and how they might be
affected by balance growth. Such
groups, for example, could recognize the
effect of balance growth as being
different for parent borrowers versus
student borrowers because the former
have less access to IDR plans and as a
result have less of an ability to have
balances forgiven after a certain period
in repayment.
The different dates for measuring the
original balance in § 30.82(a) reflect data
limitations the Department faces in
accurately calculating the right balance
to use as a baseline. These data
limitations are explained in the
discussion of reasons for § 30.81.
During the third negotiated
rulemaking session, the Department
proposed two regulatory sections that
are similar to proposed § 30.82. The
Committee did not reach consensus on
these proposed sections.
§ 30.83 Waiver based on time since a
loan first entered repayment.
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20
U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides that in the
performance of, and with respect to, the
functions, powers, and duties, vested in
him by this part, the Secretary may
enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or
release any right, title, claim, lien, or
demand, however acquired, including
any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 30.83(a)(1) specifies the conditions
under which the Secretary may waive
the outstanding balance of Federal
student loans received for the
borrower’s undergraduate study.
Under this proposed rule, borrowers
would have their outstanding balances
waived only for loans that were received
for undergraduate study or Direct
Consolidation Loans that repaid only
loans that were obtained for
undergraduate study, and which first
entered repayment on or before July 1,
2005. Proposed § 30.83(a)(2) describes
the conditions under which the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
27575
Secretary may grant waivers on
outstanding balances of Federal student
loans other than those loans that were
received for undergraduate study, and
first entered repayment on or before July
1, 2000.
Proposed § 30.83(b) specifies how the
Department would calculate the date
when a loan originally entered
repayment. For a loan that is not a PLUS
loan or a consolidation loan, the
Department would use the day after the
loan’s initial grace period ends. For
PLUS loans made to either a parent or
a graduate or professional student, the
Department would use the date the loan
is fully disbursed. For a Federal
Consolidation Loan or Direct
Consolidation Loan made prior to July
1, 2023, the Department would consider
the earliest date a loan repaid by the
consolidation loan had the following
occur:
• For a non-PLUS, non-consolidation
loan, the day after its initial grace period
ended,
• For a PLUS loan to a graduate or
professional student or a parent, the
date the loan was disbursed.
For a Direct Consolidation Loan made
on or after July 1, 2023, the date for
measuring repayment entry would be
based upon the latest day a loan repaid
by the consolidation loan had its initial
grace period end or was fully disbursed.
Reasons: The standard repayment
plan that acts as the default option for
borrowers provides a repayment
schedule of 120 monthly installments of
fixed amounts, the equivalent of 10
years.22 Similarly, the income
contingent repayment authority
provides that borrowers repay over an
extended period, but such repayment
period is not to exceed 25 years.23 More
recently, the IBR plan provides that a
borrower’s repayment term ends when
they reach the equivalent of 20 or 25
years of monthly payments, depending
on when they first took out loans.24
The Department is concerned that
despite the presence of ways for
repayment to end, too many borrowers
end up owing loans for years, if not
decades, longer than the repayment
plans generally require. In estimates
presented later in the RIA, millions of
borrowers have been in repayment for
over 20 or 25 years.25 The Department
22 See 20 U.S.C. 1078(b)(9)(A)(i) and 20 U.S.C.
1087e(d)(1)(A).
23 See 20 U.S.C. 1087e(d)(1)(D).
24 See 20 U.S.C. 1098e.
25 There is also evidence of many borrowers being
in repayment for a long time in a paper by the
Urban Institute using credit panel data estimated
that there are nearly 100,000 borrowers with loans
that were first originated prior to 1990, making
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
Continued
17APP3
27576
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
is particularly concerned that when
loans persist for this long, they are
unlikely to be repaid in a reasonable
period of time. In recognition of this
problem, Congress and the Department
have made several statutory and
regulatory changes to the student loan
program so that borrowers can fully
repay their debt within a reasonable
time. However, borrowers who took out
loans prior to the creation of these
changes spent years or decades without
the generous benefits that exist today
and, as a result, may have faced more
repayment challenges and be less likely
to retire their debts within a reasonable
time. The Department has already taken
some steps to address this concern
through the payment count adjustment.
In that situation, the Department was
concerned that because of inaccurate
recordkeeping, borrowers may not have
received appropriate credit toward
forgiveness on IDR plans that they had
earned. We were also worried about
incorrect application of policies
designed to limit repeated use of
forbearances or properly tracking which
deferments are supposed to count
toward forgiveness. To that end, we
credit all months a borrower spent in a
repayment status, plus any months
during which a borrower spent 12
consecutive or 36 cumulative months in
a forbearance, and any deferments
besides being in-school prior to 2013.
We also do not reset progress toward
forgiveness based upon loan
consolidation. While the payment count
adjustment provides important
assistance, it does not capture the full
set of circumstances in which a
borrower may struggle to accrue time to
forgiveness. This includes time spent in
default and time spent in forbearance
that does not meet the criteria of the
payment count adjustment.
The Department views proposed
§ 30.83 as providing a waiver to
borrowers who have had their loans for
such an extended period that they are
unlikely to fully repay within a
reasonable period.
In drafting § 30.83, the Department
has proposed to adopt several
parameters to mirror the existing IDR
plans. For instance, we would use debt
relief thresholds of 20 or 25 years
because those are the same periods
available on IDR plans. We propose
them well more than 30 years old. The author also
estimated that 1.5 million borrowers had a loan
with an origination date before 2000. The author
notes these statistics may well be an underestimate
because older debts may no longer appear on a
borrower’s credit report even though they are still
outstanding. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/
files/publication/101492/when_student_loans_
linger_0.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
applying this provision to loans that
entered repayment on or before July 1,
2005 for borrowers who do not have any
graduate loans because these borrowers
will have been in repayment for all or
part of 20 calendar years or more when
the regulation is implemented; and we
propose applying this provision to loans
that entered repayment on or before July
1, 2000 for borrowers who have any
graduate loans because these borrowers
will have been in repayment for all or
part of 25 calendar years when this
provision is implemented. We also
elected to use the differential treatment
of undergraduate and graduate
borrowers that exists in SAVE and was
carried over from the since-replaced
Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE)
plan. The Department further believes
after reviewing information identified in
FSA’s Enterprise Data Warehouse, that
the differential treatment for
undergraduate versus graduate loans is
reasonable because Department data
show that undergraduate borrowers go
into delinquency or default at
significantly higher rates than graduate
borrowers. According to these data, 90
percent of borrowers who are in default
on their loans had only taken out loans
for their undergraduate education. By
contrast, only 1 percent of borrowers
who are in default only had graduate
loans.
In proposing this treatment of loans
that entered repayment a long time ago,
the Department would not adopt the
terms for a shortened period until
forgiveness that is included in SAVE.
That provision allows borrowers to
receive forgiveness after as few as 120
payments if their original principal
balance was $12,000 or less. The
Department does not think it is
appropriate to adopt that threshold here
because this timeline is only available
under the SAVE plan. By contrast, the
goal of § 30.83 is to address situations
where borrowers have been unable to
fully repay in a reasonable time and
have not even been able to repay in full
over an extended period. This extended
period is consistent with the forgiveness
timelines on other IDR plans, which
provide repayment terms of up to 20 or
25 years.
The Department also proposes to
include language in § 30.83(b)
explaining how we would determine the
date of repayment entry in several
different situations. For loans that are
not PLUS loans or consolidation loans,
we propose to use the date after the final
day of a loan’s grace period. That is the
most intuitive date associated with what
it means to enter repayment. For PLUS
loans made to either a parent or a
graduate or professional student we
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
propose using the day the loan is fully
disbursed. This recognizes that PLUS
loans have multiple options for when
borrowers enter repayment. Since 2008,
parent borrowers have had the option to
defer repayment entry until after the
dependent undergraduate leaves school.
But not all choose to do this, and some
parents choose to enter repayment right
away, in which case their repayment
entry date is the same as the
disbursement date. Similarly, graduate
borrowers have the option to decline
their in-school deferment. Using the
date of disbursement is therefore a
consistent treatment of PLUS loans
regardless of whether the borrower
elected to go into repayment right away.
The Department proposes a simpler
solution for picking the date to assign
for repayment entry for a consolidation
loan. We are concerned that simply
counting the date of the consolidation
loan’s disbursement would be unfair to
borrowers because it could result in
erasing years of time since repayment
entry for borrowers, unwittingly. The
Department has addressed concerns
about a full reset of forgiveness clocks
through consolidation in recent
regulations on IDR and PSLF and
maintains that concern here. In those
circumstances we have addressed that
issue through using a weighted average
of the underlying loans.26 Instead, for
this regulation we propose an approach
that is simpler to administer and clearer
to understand. For consolidation loans
made before July 1, 2023, we propose
using the earliest date that any loan that
was repaid by a consolidation loan
ended its initial grace period or was
disbursed in the case of a PLUS loan.
We propose this date of July 1, 2023,
because it was the day after the
Department announced this rulemaking
in a press release and there was no way
a borrower could have known to
consolidate and receive this benefit.27
As such, borrowers could not have
engaged in any strategic consolidation
to receive this benefit before July 1,
2023. For consolidation loans disbursed
on or after July 1, 2023, we propose to
instead use the latest date that any loan
repaid by the consolidation ended its
initial grace period, or in the case of a
PLUS loan was disbursed. By
establishing these different thresholds, a
borrower’s repayment progress will not
fully reset when a borrower consolidates
loans on which a borrower had
previously made payments. In addition,
26 See 34 CFR 685.209(k)(4)(v)(B) and 34 CFR
685.219(c)(3).
27 https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/factsheet-president-biden-announces-new-actionsprovide-debt-relief-and-support-student-loanborrowers.
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
this also makes certain that a borrower
could not consolidate after the
Department announced this proposal in
order to receive a waiver of newer loans
alongside older ones. We have
determined that this approach is more
operationally feasible and carries a
lower risk of errors.
During negotiated rulemaking, the
Department proposed only waiving
loans that first entered repayment 20 or
25 years ago at the time we would
implement this section. Negotiators and
public commenters raised significant
concerns about how such an approach
would create a ‘‘cliff effect’’ in which a
borrower who falls just a month or two
short of 20 or 25 years would not be
eligible for a waiver, despite facing
significant financial burden of student
loan debt over time and facing many of
the same repayment challenges as those
borrowers eligible for relief under this
provision.
The Department understands the
concerns raised by negotiators and
members of the public about the
challenges with operating this policy
only once. At the same time, however,
the Department is concerned that an
ongoing policy would not recognize
how the Department has taken steps to
address many repayment challenges on
a going-forward basis by introducing
several IDR plans, including the new
SAVE plan, which should make it
substantially easier going forward for
borrowers to make payments that
qualify for forgiveness. We have not yet
identified a solution to this issue that
would still encourage borrowers who
have not yet reached forgiveness to
continue making required payments
until they reach the 20- or 25-year mark.
And for any solution for this cliff, we
would need a way to appropriately
model the likelihood that a borrower
does take necessary steps in the future
to be eligible for relief under this
approach so that we can assign it the
proper estimated cost in the net budget
impact.
Given the considerations outlined
above and in light of the changes the
Department has made under recent IDR
plans, we invite feedback from the
public about how to acknowledge and
address the repayment challenges of
borrowers who entered repayment a
long time ago, but not long enough to
immediately qualify under this
provision, and who are unlikely to
repay their loan in full in a reasonable
period. We also invite feedback on how
to determine the likelihood that any
borrower who does not yet reach
forgiveness under the proposed policy
would qualify for forgiveness under any
suggested alternative one. For example,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
if the Department were to award credit
toward forgiveness timelines for all
months since entering repayment up
until July 2024 (when all of SAVE’s
provisions become effective), and a
borrower first entered repayment at least
15 years ago, what standards are
appropriate for determining whether the
borrower reaches the 20- or 25-year
threshold in light of the Department’s
recent steps to fix repayment challenges
through SAVE? In addition, how would
the Department determine the
likelihood that such borrower ultimately
takes necessary steps to reach a 20 or
25-year forgiveness threshold under the
proposed standard?
The Committee did not reach
consensus on proposed § 30.83.
§ 30.84 Waiver when a loan is
eligible for forgiveness based upon
repayment plan.
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20
U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides that in the
performance of, and with respect to, the
functions, powers, and duties, vested in
him by this part, the Secretary may
enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or
release any right, title, claim, lien, or
demand, however acquired, including
any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 30.84 would specify that the Secretary
may waive the outstanding balance of a
loan for borrowers who are otherwise
eligible for forgiveness under an IBR
plan, Income-contingent Repayment
(ICR) plan, or an alternative repayment
plan but are not currently enrolled in
the plan where they could receive
forgiveness. The amount of the waiver
would be the same as what the borrower
would receive under the applicable IDR
plan. Currently borrowers who are
repaying their loans under an IDR plan
must meet the eligibility requirements
to enroll and qualify for forgiveness of
their Federal student debt. Under all
IDR plans, any remaining loan balance
is forgiven if their loans are not fully
repaid at the end of the repayment
period.
Reasons: Congress and the
Department have provided borrowers
with various income-based repayment
plan options over time. The Department
currently offers four IDR plans: the IBR
plan, ICR plan, Pay as You Earn
Repayment (PAYE) plan, and the new
SAVE plan that replaced the former
REPAYE plan. For purposes of this
NPRM we refer to IBR, ICR, PAYE,
SAVE, and REPAYE collectively as IDR
plans.
The HEA sets forth the requirements
for borrowers to receive relief under the
terms of the various IDR plans. For both
ICR and IBR, a borrower may receive
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
27577
relief as long as they have accumulated
the requisite amount of time making
qualified payments or being in a
qualified deferment.28 The HEA does
not require these qualifying payments or
deferments to occur while the borrower
is enrolled in an ICR plan to receive
relief under ICR,29 nor must they occur
while a borrower is on an IBR plan to
receive relief under IBR.30 Rather, the
HEA permits borrowers to receive relief
under these plans so long as the
borrower participates in them at some
point after such qualifying payments or
deferments have occurred.31 While the
HEA’s ICR and IBR provisions do
specify steps and procedures for
obtaining a borrower’s income
information to calculate reduced
payments under these plans, there is no
requirement that borrowers provide
such information as a condition of
receiving relief. Instead, the HEA leaves
the specific details of how to
operationalize the procedures for
enrolling in IDR plans up to the
Secretary. Under this proposed
provision, the Secretary would use
information within the Department’s
possession to identify borrowers already
eligible for relief and provide them with
the opportunity to enroll in the IDR plan
by choosing not to opt-out of receiving
a waiver.
Such waivers would benefit many
borrowers because the Department’s
current IDR regulations require
borrowers to apply to enroll in IDR
plans.32 Unfortunately, Department
experience and independent research
shows that there have been persistent
challenges getting borrowers who would
benefit from IDR plans to enroll in
them.33 And when borrowers do enroll,
large shares of them fail to successfully
recertify and stay enrolled. For example,
one study by the JP Morgan Chase
Institute found that for every borrower
enrolled in IDR there are two others
who would benefit from such a plan but
28 See 20 U.S.C. 1087e(e)(7) (ICR provision
describing qualifying payments and deferments for
relief); 20 U.S.C. 1098(b)(7) (IBR provision
describing qualifying payments and deferments for
relief).
29 See 20 U.S.C. 1087e(e)(7).
30 20 U.S.C. 1098(b)(7) (stating the Secretary may
repay or cancel any outstanding balance of
principal and interest for a borrower who ‘‘at any
time, elected to participate in’’ an IBR plan and
meets the conditions for qualified payments or
deferment).
31 See 20 U.S.C. 1087e(e)(7); 20 U.S.C. 1098(b)(7).
32 34 CFR 685.209(l).
33 Goldstein, Adam, Charlie Eaton, Amber
Villalobos, Parijat Chakrabarti, Jeremy Cohen, and
Katie Donnelly. ‘‘Administrative Burden in Federal
Student Loan Repayment, and Socially Stratified
Access to Income-Driven Repayment Plans.’’ RSF:
The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social
Sciences 9, no. 4 (2023): 86–111.
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
27578
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
are not enrolled.34 Similarly, the Federal
Reserve Bank of Philadelphia found that
many borrowers were unaware of the
new SAVE plan, especially among
borrower groups who were most likely
to benefit from it, and potential
beneficiaries remained uncertain even
after learning about plan features and
benefits.35
The Department is concerned that its
past practices of administering IDR
plans have made it too challenging for
borrowers to successfully navigate these
processes. The result has been
borrowers struggling to figure out which
IDR plan is best, determine whether
they are eligible, and then submit an
application.36
Under the Department’s current
regulations, borrowers must also reenroll in the IDR plan each year and risk
being removed from the plan if they fail
to recertify their participation in a
timely basis. The Department has taken
many steps in recent years to address
this problem. We created the SAVE
plan, which addresses many of the
issues that borrowers experienced in
other IDR plans. We also are
implementing a regulatory change 37
that makes it possible for borrowers to
automatically recertify their IDR
enrollment by providing approval for
the disclosure of their Federal tax
information.
The Department is also concerned
about how past challenges with
administering IDR plans may have
exacerbated these issues for borrowers
with older loans. In April 2022, the
Department announced it was taking
executive action to address concerns
about a lack of consistent tracking of
borrower progress toward forgiveness
and improper implementation of
policies designed to limit the use of
extended time in forbearances.38
Through that process we have identified
and provided relief to hundreds of
34 https://www.jpmorganchase.com/institute/
research/household-debt/student-loan-incomedriven-repayment#finding-1.
35 https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/frbp/
assets/consumer-finance/reports/cfi-sl-payments-3resumption.pdf.
36 Herbst, Daniel. ‘‘The impact of income-driven
repayment on student borrower outcomes.’’
American Economic Journal: Applied Economics
15, no. 1 (2023): 1–25.; Conkling, Thomas S., and
Christa Gibbs. ‘‘Borrower experiences on incomedriven repayment.’’ Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, Office of Research Reports Series 19–10
(2019).
37 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/
2023/07/10/2023-13112/improving-income-drivenrepayment-for-the-william-d-ford-federal-directloan-program-and-the-federal.
38 https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/
department-education-announces-actions-fixlongstanding-failures-student-loan-programs?utm_
content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_
source=govdelivery&utm_term=.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
thousands of borrowers who were
eligible for IDR forgiveness but had not
enrolled. Simultaneously, the
Department put in place processes to fix
these issues going forward, including
giving borrowers a clear count of their
progress toward forgiveness and
addressing the use of forbearances.
However, we are concerned that there is
still a group of borrowers who did not
reach forgiveness through the payment
count adjustment and who are not so
new to borrowing that all their time in
repayment would be covered by these
improvements. In particular, these
would be borrowers who are eligible for
the forgiveness benefits under the SAVE
plan, which provides forgiveness after
as few as 120 months (10 years) in
repayment for borrowers who originally
took out $12,000 or less. Keeping
borrowers such as these in the
repayment system when they could
receive a discharge immediately creates
costs for the Department because we
have to continue to pay servicers to
manage these loans.
The Department proposes applying
this section to borrowers repaying under
all types of IDR plans, including those
created under the income-contingent
repayment authority and IBR, and the
alternative plan. We include the
alternative plan as well because that
plan contains an option to provide
borrowers forgiveness after a set period
of time, even if they have not paid off
the full balance. In that regard it is
similar to IDR plans. By contrast, other
payment plans do not provide
forgiveness and so are not appropriate to
include in this section.
In applying this waiver, the Secretary
would provide borrowers with relief
identical to what they would have
otherwise received on the relevant IDR
plan. They are not receiving benefits
any larger than they otherwise would
have if they successfully navigated the
enrollment or re-enrollment process.
The non-Federal negotiators
supported the Department’s proposal to
waive the outstanding balance of loans
and encouraged the Department to
automate the process and expedite the
approval and debt relief as much as
possible.
The Committee reached consensus on
proposed § 30.84.
§ 30.85 Waiver when a loan is
eligible for a targeted forgiveness
opportunity.
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20
U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides that in the
performance of, and with respect to, the
functions, powers, and duties, vested in
him by this part, the Secretary may
enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or
release any right, title, claim, lien, or
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
demand, however acquired, including
any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 30.85 would provide that the Secretary
may waive up to the entire outstanding
balance of a loan where the Secretary
determines that a borrower has not
successfully applied for, but otherwise
meets, the eligibility requirements for
any other loan discharge, cancellation,
or forgiveness program under 34 CFR
parts 682 or 685. This includes
opportunities such as false certification
discharge, closed school loan
discharges, and Public Service Loan
Forgiveness (PSLF).
The proposed regulations also specify
that if a borrower has a Direct
Consolidation Loan or a Federal
Consolidation Loan where only part of
it would meet the criteria of this section
that the Secretary may waive the portion
of the outstanding balance of the
consolidation loan attributable to such
loan.
Reasons: The HEA outlines several
opportunities for borrowers in the Direct
or FFEL Programs to receive Federal
student loan forgiveness in certain
situations if the borrower meets the
eligibility requirements. For both loan
types, this includes forgiveness when a
borrower is enrolled at a school that
closes, if they have a total and
permanent disability, or have a loan that
has been falsely certified. Direct Loan
borrowers are also eligible for PSLF.
The Department has historically seen
many situations where borrowers do not
successfully apply for available relief
when they are eligible. For example, in
August 2021, the Department issued a
final rule that provided automatic
forgiveness for borrowers who were
identified as eligible for a total and
permanent disability discharge through
a data match with the Social Security
Administration.39 The Department had
been using such a match for years to
identify eligible borrowers but required
them to opt in to receive relief. After
switching to an opt out model, we have
provided relief to more than 350,000
borrowers, showing that a default of
inclusion helps these programs to reach
the people who need them. Absent this
action it is possible many of these
borrowers would still have loans today.
Similarly, GAO studies of closed school
loan discharges have found that many
borrowers eligible for a closed school
loan discharge fail to apply, and that
those who in the past received
automatic closed school loan discharges
after a three-year waiting period were
39 87
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
FR 65904 (November 1, 2022).
17APP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
highly likely to default during the
waiting period.40
The waivers proposed in this section
would build on efforts made by the
Department over the past several years
to improve regulations for existing
discharge programs to allow the
Secretary to award borrowers relief
under different programs if we
determine that they otherwise meet the
criteria. Beyond the regulatory programs
to automatically provide discharges to
eligible borrowers, the Secretary may
have or obtain information showing that
additional borrowers are or should be
eligible for relief on their loans. For
example, borrowers whose schools
closed while they were enrolled outside
of the time periods that the Department
provided automatic relief would
nonetheless be eligible for this relief if
they applied. By giving these borrowers
an opportunity to obtain the relief
intended for them by choosing not to
opt out, this rule would make that relief
available in a fairer manner that lessens
the burdens on borrowers. Although
schools can be liable for relief provided
based on the closed school discharge
regulation, schools would not face a
liability for waivers granted under this
section. Because the Secretary would
have waived the amounts owed by the
borrower there is no liability that could
then be established against the
institution and then pursued through
administrative proceedings.
It is possible that a borrower whose
loans have been consolidated could
have some of the loans repaid by the
consolidation that are eligible for a
waiver and some that would not be. For
example, a borrower could have loans
from one school that are eligible for a
closed school loan discharge and other
loans that are not. In such situations the
Department would waive repayment of
the portion of the consolidation loan
attributable to that loan repaid by the
consolidation loan that is eligible for the
waiver.
Overall, the Department believes that
this waiver will provide additional
flexibility and help get relief to more
borrowers who are eligible for Federal
student loan forgiveness.
One non-Federal negotiator opposed
this proposed regulation. The negotiator
stated concerns for other borrowers who
are already eligible for Federal student
loan discharges who would be treated
differently under the waiver authority
and may lose other benefits currently
provided by existing Federal student
loan discharge programs. This same
negotiator provided an example of a
borrower who may face tax
40 https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-105373.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
consequences if they receive this benefit
under the waiver instead of utilizing
other discharge programs where such a
discharge would be statutorily excluded
from being considered taxable income.
By law, there is no Federal taxation on
Federal student loans forgiven by the
Department through the end of 2025.41
Before any usage of this authority the
Department would also consider
whether a borrower is already eligible
for a discharge under the existing
forgiveness opportunity.
The Committee did not reach
consensus on proposed § 30.85.
§ 30.86 Waiver based upon
Secretarial actions.
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20
U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides that in the
performance of, and with respect to, the
functions, powers, and duties, vested in
him by this part, the Secretary may
enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or
release any right, title, claim, lien, or
demand, however acquired, including
any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Under
proposed § 30.86(a), the Secretary may
waive the entire outstanding balance of
a loan associated with attending an
institution or a program at an institution
if the Secretary or other authorized
Department official took certain final
agency actions. These final agency
actions are: termination of the
institution or academic program’s
participation in the title IV, HEA
programs; a denial of the institution’s
request for recertification; or
determination that the institution or
program loses title IV eligibility. To
qualify under this section, the final
agency action must have been taken in
whole or in part due to the institution
or academic program failing to meet an
accountability standard based on
student outcomes for determining
eligibility in the title IV, HEA programs
or the Department determining that the
institution or program failed to deliver
sufficient financial value to students.
Such situations that are evidence of
failure to provide sufficient financial
value include when the institution or
program has engaged in substantial
misrepresentations, substantial
omissions, misconduct affecting student
eligibility, or other similar activities.
Currently, proposed 30.86(a)(2) also
includes the following language: ‘‘this
paragraph applies to circumstances
when the institution or program has lost
accreditation at least in part due to such
activities.’’ The intent of the consensus
41 See Title IX, Subtitle G, Part 8, section 9675 of
the American Rescue Plan Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 117–
2).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
27579
language was to clarify that the
underlying finding that supports the
Department’s determination that an
institution or program failed to deliver
financial value under proposed
§ 30.86(a)(2) could be a finding made by
the Department or it could be a finding
made by an accreditor that terminated
accreditation based at least in part on
that finding. Since the Committee
reached consensus on the language
included in 30.86, the Department
included it in these proposed
regulations. However, the Department
believes that this intent could be stated
more clearly as: ‘‘The institution or
program has failed to deliver sufficient
financial value to students, including in
situations where either (i) the
Department has determined that the
institution or program has engaged in
substantial misrepresentations,
substantial omissions, misconduct
affecting student eligibility, or other
similar activities; or (ii) the Department
has determined that the accrediting
agency has terminated its accreditation
based at least in part upon a finding that
the institution or program has engaged
in the activities described in paragraph
(a)(2)(i) of this section.’’ The Department
invites comments on this possible
change.
Proposed § 30.86(b) would specify
that the waiver applies to a borrower’s
loans received for attending that
program or school during the period
that corresponds with the findings or
outcomes data unless the Department
believes the use of a different period is
appropriate. In the case of a Federal
Consolidation Loan or Direct
Consolidation Loan that has an
outstanding balance, under proposed
§ 30.86(c) the Secretary would waive the
portion of the outstanding balance of the
consolidation loan attributable to such
loan received for attending that program
or school during the period that
corresponds with the findings or
outcomes data.
Reasons: Conducting rigorous
oversight and enforcing accountability
measures are key functions for the
Department.42 Identifying situations in
which institutions or programs are
failing to meet requirements of the HEA
and taking action to prevent the flow of
future title IV aid dollars is an important
way to solidify that taxpayer funds are
well spent and to protect future
borrowers and aid recipients from harm.
42 Some examples of the Department’s oversight
and compliance measures over institutions include
but are not limited to: program reviews authorized
under Sec. 498A of the HEA; requiring most
institutions to submit a compliance and financial
audit authorized under Sec. 487(c) of the HEA; and
others.
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
27580
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
However, while we take aggressive
action to protect future borrowers and
aid recipients, we often do not address
loans held by borrowers who attended
programs or institutions at the very time
we observed the issues that led to the
termination of future aid receipt. For
example, a borrower who attended an
institution that lost access to aid
because of high CDRs, is still left to
repay their loans, even as the
Department takes steps to protect future
borrowers from going into debt at those
institutions.
This waiver would provide relief to
borrowers who received loans to attend
programs or institutions that lost access
to title IV aid for specific agency actions
if they took out loans during the period
that generated the outcomes data that
led to the aid termination or who
attended during the period covered by
evidence that was used to justify cutting
off title IV aid into the future.
The Department believes waivers in
this situation are appropriate because
we think it is unfair to expect borrowers
to continue repaying loans from a time
when we know the issues at the
institution or program were so
significant that they warranted adverse
Secretarial action. These are loans
where we know the borrower is not
getting the benefit of the bargain one
should expect when they take out loans
for postsecondary education or, in cases
such as substantial misrepresentation,
that the loans should not have been
made in the first place.
Waivers of Federal student loan debt
under proposed § 30.86 would only
apply after a final agency action. That
means the institution would have
exhausted its administrative appeals for
that final action. For example, if the
Secretary denies an institution’s request
for recertification, that institution would
still be afforded the opportunity to
appeal that denial in accordance with
34 CFR part 668, subpart G and only
until the institution exhausts its appeals
options for the denial of the
recertification—or indicates that it does
not intend to appeal the decision—
would the Department consider waiving
affected borrowers’ loan balances in
accordance with this regulation. If an
institution does not appeal a liability in
a specific finding in a Final Program
Review Determination (FPRD), the
finding in that FPRD would be
considered final. Relying only on final
agency actions also means that instances
in which the Secretary initiates an
action and then does not finalize it due
to a successful appeal would not be
included. For example, if an institution
successfully appeals a failing CDR and
does not lose aid eligibility, borrowers
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
who attended the institution would not
be eligible for a waiver under this
section.
The Department also recognizes that
sometimes agency actions are ultimately
resolved through settlements. We
propose that settlements where there is
an acknowledgement of wrongdoing
would qualify as a final agency action
under this section, while settlements
that lack such an acknowledgment of
wrongdoing would not. We believe this
approach is appropriate because the
proposed regulation applies if the
Department determines the program or
institution failed an accountability
measure related to student outcomes or
failed to provide sufficient financial
value.
Institutions would also not be liable
for the costs associated with any
waivers granted under this section.
Because this is an exercise of the
Secretary’s waiver authority there
would not be a liability to seek against
an institution. The one exception is for
liabilities related to certain loans issued
while an institution appeals or requests
for an adjustment to its CDR. Liabilities
for those amounts are discussed in
§ 668.206(f).
This waiver would be used only when
the termination of the institution’s title
IV participation occurred for specific
reasons. These fall into two categories.
The first is the institution’s failure of
accountability standards based on
student outcomes, namely those related
to CDRs and Gainful Employment. This
includes failures of those measures that
occurred in the past when they resulted
in loss of title IV eligibility.43 The
Department chose these types of
measures because those are situations in
which the Department directly
measured the outcomes of borrowers in
a specific cohort and found the results
so lacking that aid could not continue.
An institution would have to fail its
CDR or GE metrics enough times to
warrant a final action from the
Department and that failure would have
to be sustained following any appeal
options available to the institution or
program.
This waiver would not apply to the
failure of other metrics that are not
directly tied to student outcomes. This
includes the calculation of an
institution’s financial responsibility
43 There are some institutions that previously lost
title IV eligibility because of failing CDRs, and
qualifying loans associated with those institutions
would be eligible. By contrast, there are not any
programs that previously lost title IV eligibility
based on failing GE measures because the prior rule
was rescinded before any program lost eligibility,
and the new rule does not go into effect until July
2024.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
composite score prescribed in 34 CFR
part 668, subpart L or for proprietary
institutions, their 90/10 non-Federal
revenue calculation prescribed in 34
CFR 668.28. These other performance
standards are important but do not
directly measure student outcomes.
The Department is not concerned that
granting a waiver based upon student
outcomes would create an incentive for
future borrowers to willfully default on
their loans or take other actions that
could cause the program to fail the debtto-earnings or earnings premium
measures used in Gainful Employment.
First, all these measures operate on the
observed outcomes across either all
borrowers who entered repayment or all
those who received title IV aid and
graduated. They also generally require
measuring performance across multiple
years. The lone exception to this being
a one-year CDR in excess of 40 percent,
which leads to a loss of loan eligibility.
Intentionally failing the measure would
require extremely coordinated activity
across likely multiple years of students.
Making such a situation further unlikely
is the fact that the consequences of
intentionally failing a measure with
uncertain odds of success could be
significant. Defaulting on a student loan
has significant consequences. Borrowers
can see their credit scores plummet and
tax refunds seized. Regarding Gainful
Employment metrics, borrowers would
be having to settle for lower earnings,
which has additional effects on their
ability to afford basic necessities.
The second type of actions relate to
situations where there is a
determination that the institution or
program failed to deliver sufficient
financial value. We propose defining
this as findings that an institution
engaged in substantial
misrepresentations or omissions of fact,
misconduct affecting student eligibility,
or other similar activities. We chose
these situations because those would be
cases in which the institution engaged
in behavior that affected the value of
what a borrower received for their loans.
For instance, if the Department
terminates aid on a prospective basis
because it finds that an institution had
been consistently lying to borrowers
about their ability to get jobs when in
fact internal statistics showed that fewer
than half of students obtained
employment in the field in which they
were being prepared then that is a sign
that the borrower did not receive what
they were promised. We would also
waive repayment of the loans of
borrowers who were included in those
periods used to determine that the
actual employment rates were far lower
than what was promised. Waivers
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
granted because of this section could
also include circumstances where the
Secretary terminates aid because an
institution or program loses
accreditation at least in part for the
same type of reasons.
The Department recognizes that
borrowers eligible for relief under this
provision may also be eligible for relief
under the Department’s other discharge
programs, such as borrower defense. As
a general matter, the Department does
not see a problem with providing
overlapping pathways to relief. Such
overlaps are not uncommon in the
student loan system. For example, there
have been many borrowers who have
been eligible for both a closed school
loan discharge and a borrower defense
discharge. In such instances, the
Department has opted to proceed with
the most operationally efficient
discharge since the borrower receives
the same benefits under either option.
Where possible, the Department intends
to provide eligible borrowers relief
through other existing discharge
programs, such as borrower defense or
closed school discharge. But the
Department’s experience is that there
are some circumstances where a
borrower may not receive relief under
these discharges but meets the
conditions of § 30.86(a)(2).
Waivers in this section would not be
granted in response to every action the
Department takes to terminate aid
access at an institution. For instance, an
institution that loses access to aid
because of financial problems, solely
because it closed, or other situations
that do not speak to the returns received
by students would not be captured here.
Because those aid loss circumstances do
not relate to the benefit received by
borrowers, we do not think it is
appropriate to include them here as a
waiver. The Department would make
the determination as to whether an
action meets this requirement for each
institution or program.
Final actions under proposed § 30.86
would include those sanctions in 34
CFR part 668, subparts G and H, other
final actions stemming from an
institution’s loss of eligibility under 34
CFR part 600, subpart D, as well as other
final action by the Department. As the
Department explained during negotiated
rulemaking sessions, these final actions
are situations where the Secretary or
other Departmental official has taken
formal action to cease an institution or
program’s participation in the title IV,
HEA programs on a prospective basis.
A non-Federal negotiator encouraged
us to include an institution’s loss of
accreditation as a condition under
which the Department could waive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
repayment of Federal student loan debt
and another negotiator believed a more
expansive general loss of title IV
eligibility should be used as a basis for
waiving repayment. The Department
concurred and incorporated in
§ 30.86(a)(2), circumstances when the
institution or program loses
accreditation as a basis for waiving
Federal student loan debt under this
proposed section.
Under proposed § 30.86(b), the
Department would apply this provision
to a borrower’s loans received for
attending that institution or program
during the period that corresponds with
the findings or outcomes data that forms
the basis for the final action for this
waiver. For example, if an institution
lost access to title IV aid due to CDRs
in excess of the statutory limits for
borrowers who entered repayment in
2016, 2017, and 2018, then we would
waive repayment of the loans from that
institution of borrowers who borrowed
during that period. Similarly, if an
institution lost access to aid because of
substantial misrepresentations in a
nursing program in 2023, then we
would waive repayment of the loans of
borrowers who took out loans for that
program in that period of the final
action.
Limiting this waiver only to
borrowers whose enrollment overlaps
during the corresponding period enables
the scope of the findings or outcomes
data to apply to similarly situated
borrowers and provides consistent
treatment to all affected borrowers. At
the same time, the Department
recognizes that there could be unique
circumstances in which the period used
for the Secretarial action does not fully
capture the period during which the
Department believes the actions covered
by this section otherwise occurred. In
such circumstances, proposed
§ 30.86(b), allows for the Secretary to
designate an alternative period for
determining a borrower’s eligibility for
a waiver. Examples of such
considerations could be capturing
additional years related to CDR failures
where the Department has reason to
believe an institution would have failed
except for efforts to manipulate rates to
keep them artificially low. Another
instance might also be years that took
place after an investigation that led to a
Secretarial action and a school action
started but the institution later closed
making it infeasible for the Department
to add the years after its investigation
finished to be included in the period of
identified conduct. For example, if the
Department investigated an institution
from 2020 to 2022 and finished the
process of a Secretarial action in 2024,
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
27581
after which the school closed, the
Secretary may choose to consider
whether loans disbursed from 2023 and
2024 should also be considered under
this provision.
Finally, the Department also
concurred with a non-Federal negotiator
who suggested we include an additional
paragraph which states that if the
conditions of the waiver are met and the
loan was repaid by a consolidation loan
that has an outstanding balance, the
Department would waive the portion of
the outstanding balance of the
consolidation loan attributable to such
loan. We believe that it is logical to
waive only the underlying loan that was
part of a consolidation loan associated
with the final action associated for this
waiver. Borrowers who otherwise
consolidated their loans would have a
pathway toward this waiver and would
not lose their opportunities for this
waiver because of the consolidation.
The Committee reached consensus on
proposed § 30.86.
§ 30.87 Waiver following a closure
prior to Secretarial actions.
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20
U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides that in the
performance of, and with respect to, the
functions, powers and duties, vested in
him by this part, the Secretary may
enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or
release any right, title, claim, lien, or
demand, however acquired, including
any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Under
proposed § 30.87(a)(1), the Secretary
may waive the entire outstanding
balance of a loan associated with
attending an institution or a program at
an institution if the institution or
program closes and the Secretary or
other authorized Department official has
determined that, based on the most
recent reliable data for an institution or
program, the institution or program has
not satisfied, for at least a year, an
accountability standard based on
student’s outcomes for determining that
institution or program’s eligibility for
title IV funds. Under proposed
§§ 30.87(a)(2)(i) and (ii) the Secretary
may also waive the entire outstanding
balance of a loan associated with
attending a closed institution or a closed
program at an institution if the
institution or program failed to deliver
sufficient financial value to students
and is the subject of a Departmental
action that remains unresolved at the
time of that institution or program’s
closure, in whole or in part, on certain
conduct specified in regulation.
Currently, proposed § 30.87(a)(2)(i)
also includes the following language:
‘‘this paragraph applies to
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
27582
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
circumstances when the institution or
program has lost accreditation at least in
part due to such activities.’’ The intent
of the consensus language was to clarify
that the underlying finding that
supports the Department’s
determination that an institution or
program failed to deliver sufficient
financial value under proposed
§ 30.87(a)(2)(i) could be a finding made
by the Department or it could be a
finding made by an accreditor that
terminated accreditation based at least
in part on that finding. Since the
committee reached consensus on the
language included in 30.87, the
Department has included it in these
proposed regulations. However, the
Department believes that the intent
could be stated more clearly as: ‘‘The
institution or program has failed to
deliver sufficient financial value to
students, including in situations where
either (A) the Department has
determined that the institution or
program has engaged in substantial
misrepresentations, substantial
omissions, misconduct affecting student
eligibility, or other similar activities; or
(B) the Department has determined that
the accrediting agency has terminated
its accreditation based at least in part
upon a finding that the institution or
program has engaged in the activities
described in (A).’’ The Department
invites comments on this possible
change.
Under proposed § 30.87(b), a waiver
under this section would apply to a
borrower’s loans received for attending
that institution or program during the
period that corresponds with the
findings or outcomes data. Proposed
§ 30.87(c) would provide that in the case
of Federal Consolidation Loans and
Direct Consolidation Loans, the
Secretary would waive the portion of
the outstanding balance of the
consolidation loan attributable to such
loan received for attending that
institution or program during the period
that corresponds with the findings or
outcomes data.
Institutions or programs that close
where the Secretary determined that the
institution or program has not satisfied
an accountability standard based on
student outcomes would include
institutions that fail or failed to meet the
CDR standards prescribed in 34 CFR
part 668, subpart N and programs that
do not lead to Gainful Employment
prescribed in 34 CFR part 668, subpart
S. An institution or program that failed
to deliver sufficient financial value to
students would include an institution or
program that engaged in: substantial
misrepresentations, substantial
omissions, misconduct affecting student
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
eligibility, or circumstances around loss
of accreditation associated with such
activities. The Department would
predicate this determination through a
program review, investigation, or any
other action that remains unresolved at
the time of closure and that action as
based in whole or in part to the
aforementioned misconduct.
Waivers of Federal student loan debt
under proposed § 30.87 would apply to
actions the Department has taken as
soon as one year after the institution or
program has not satisfied an
accountability standard based on
student outcomes. This provision would
also apply to an institution or program
failing to deliver sufficient financial
value to students and was the subject to
a program review, investigation, or any
other Department action that remains
unresolved at the time of closure and
that action was based, in whole or in
part, on such conduct.
Under these proposed regulations, we
would not assess liabilities against the
institution as a result of the Secretary
waiving a borrower’s Federal student
loan debt. As such, institutions would
not be subject to any request to repay
funds waived under this provision.
Reasons: Similar to proposed § 30.86,
the Department seeks to capture
circumstances where an institution or
program failed accountability standards
based on student outcomes. The main
difference between this provision and
§ 30.86 is that § 30.87 captures
situations in which an institution or
program chooses to close before the
action becomes final and could be
considered under § 30.86. The
Department is proposing a separate
section to address situations where an
institution or program has closed
because we have seen past situations
where programs or institutions fail
accountability measures and voluntarily
close, and the closure leaves the
Department with insufficient data to
conduct a final agency action. The same
is true of situations in which the
Department begins an investigation or
program review related to whether the
institution or program is providing
sufficient financial value, but the
institution or program chooses to close
before that investigation or program
review is finished. When that occurs,
the Department may not finish those
processes. In the circumstances
described above, the Department
believes that it would be reasonable for
the Secretary to infer that in the absence
of additional data or completion of
program review or investigation that the
Department would have terminated aid
access going forward and the borrower
would be eligible for a waiver. In other
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
words, we do not hold borrowers
responsible for the Department’s
inability to obtain necessary additional
information. Institutions and programs,
meanwhile, are not affected by this
inference because they have ceased
participation in the title IV programs
and would not face any liabilities from
these waivers.
While § 30.87 is designed to provide
parity with the waivers in § 30.86 so
that a borrower is not made worse off
because a school decided to close, this
provision would not cover all borrowers
enrolled at the school at the time of
closure. Because the institution closed,
borrowers who did not complete and
were enrolled at or just before the date
of closure would be eligible for a closed
school discharge.
Some examples highlight the
differences between § 30.86 and § 30.87
that necessitate a separate section. In
general, institutions are subject to loss
of eligibility to participate in the Direct
Loan 44 and Pell Grant 45 programs if
that institution’s CDR is equal to or
greater than 30 percent for each of its
three most recent cohort fiscal years. An
institution that voluntarily closes to
avoid loss of eligibility due to a high
CDR would not face sanctions, but those
students could still be repaying loans
incurred for attendance in what would
otherwise be an ineligible institution.
Proposed § 30.87 would cover such
instances if an institution or program
voluntarily closes.
The Department has encountered
situations in the past during oversight
and compliance measures over
institutions and programs where those
institutions or programs choose to close
before further reviews can be
completed. During program reviews,
investigations, or other actions,
institutions would voluntarily close the
institution or program rather than face
the consequences of sanctions.
Borrowers enrolled at those institutions
or programs who did not continue their
postsecondary education would be
eligible for a closed school loan
discharge if the institution closed. But a
borrower who completed their program
during this period would not be eligible
for a closed school discharge. A
borrower who graduated, meanwhile,
may also not be able to raise a
successful defense to repayment claim
based on the specific factual
circumstances. This provision would
provide an alternative path to relief
where the Department has sufficient
evidence to determine the institution or
44 Section 435(a)(2) of the HEA (20 U.S.C.
1085(a)(2)).
45 Section 401(j) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1070a(j)).
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
program did not provide sufficient
financial value.
This waiver would operate in a
manner separate and distinct from
closed school loan discharges. The idea
behind closed school loan discharges is
to provide relief to borrowers who are
left with loan debt and are unable to
complete their programs. That is why
closed school loan discharges are
unavailable to borrowers who
graduated. By contrast, the purpose of
this waiver is to provide relief to
borrowers who did not get the benefit of
the bargain of postsecondary education
in the sense that their institution or
program did not meet required student
outcomes standards or failed to provide
sufficient financial value, but it closed
prior to the final agency action that
would have made that determination.
The underlying reason for the waiver
and for why relief would be appropriate
are different from the reason for closed
school discharges. Negotiators
expressed support for this provision
during negotiated rulemaking sessions.
One negotiator encouraged us to also
include an institution or program’s loss
of accreditation as a condition of
waiving Federal student loan debt under
this section. In response, the
Department concurred and incorporated
in proposed § 30.87(a)(2)(i)
circumstances when the institution or
program loses accreditation as a basis
for waiving Federal student loan debt.
Similar to § 30.86, this provision
would only provide waivers to
borrowers who took out loans during
the period used to measure student
outcomes or for the program review or
investigation. For example, if an
institution had a high CDR for
borrowers who entered repayment in
2019 and then closed, the Department
would waive loans taken to attend that
institution for borrowers in that
repayment cohort. Borrowers whose
loans are not included in those periods
would not receive a waiver.
The Committee reached consensus on
proposed § 30.87.
§ 30.88 Waiver for closed Gainful
Employment (GE) programs with high
debt-to-earnings rates or low median
earnings.
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20
U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides that in the
performance of, and with respect to, the
functions, powers and duties, vested in
him by this part, the Secretary may
enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or
release any right, title, claim, lien, or
demand, however acquired, including
any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Under
proposed § 30.88(a), the Secretary may
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
waive the entire outstanding balance of
a loan received by a borrower associated
with enrollment in a GE program if the
following conditions are met: the
program or institution closed; the GE
program was not a professional medical
or dental program; and, for a period in
which the borrower received loans for
enrollment in the GE program, the
Secretary has reliable and available data
demonstrating that title IV recipients in
the GE program failed the debt-toearnings rates or earnings premium
measure described in § 30.88(a)(3).
For purposes of a waiver under
§ 30.88(a)(3)(i), the GE program would
be considered failing if that program
had a debt-to-earnings rate greater than
8 percent of their median annual
earnings and 20 percent of their median
discretionary income. Discretionary
earnings would be calculated as median
annual earnings minus 150 percent of
the Federal Poverty Guideline for a
single individual for the measurement
year. Denominators of either measures
that are zero or negative would be
considered a failure if the numerator is
a non-zero number. A GE program
would also be considered failing if it
fails the earnings premium measure
described in § 30.88(a)(3)(ii). For the
earnings premiums measure, a GE
program would be considered failing if
the median annual earnings of GE
program graduates are equal to or less
than the median annual earnings for
typical high school graduates in the
labor force (i.e., either working or
unemployed) between the ages of 25–34.
The median annual earnings would be
compared to the high school graduates
in the State in which the institution is
located, or nationally in the case of a GE
program at a foreign school, or if fewer
than 50 percent of the students in the
GE program are from the State where the
institution is located.
Under proposed § 30.88(b), a GE
program would be identified by its sixdigit Classification of Instructional
Program (CIP) code, the institution’s sixdigit Office of Postsecondary Education
ID (OPEID) number and the program’s
credential level. If the Department does
not have reliable and available data at
the GE program’s six-digit CIP code, it
would use the four-digit CIP code. The
Department would calculate the annual
loan payment by determining the
median loan debt of students who
completed the GE program during the
applicable cohort and amortizing that
debt based upon the average of the
Direct Unsubsidized Loan interest rates
based on the applicable credential level
and the years preceding the completion
year.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
27583
Additionally, under proposed
§ 30.88(c), the Secretary may waive
loans received for enrollment in a GE
program if the institution closed, and
the institution received a majority of its
title IV funds for GE programs for which
the Department could calculate debt-toearnings rates and earnings premium
measures, and the Department was
unable to calculate measures for that
program.
Proposed § 30.88(d) would provide
that in the case of Federal Consolidation
Loans and Direct Consolidation Loans,
the Secretary waives the portion of the
outstanding balance of the consolidation
loan attributable to such loan received
for attending that GE program in the
corresponding period for which the
Secretary is waiving those borrowers’
Federal student loan debt.
Reasons: The Department published
final regulations related to GE to address
ongoing concerns about educational
programs that are supposed to prepare
students for gainful employment in a
recognized occupation but that instead
leave them with unaffordable amounts
of student loan debt in relation to their
earnings, or with no gain in earnings
compared to others with no more than
a high school education.46 Going
forward, if a program fails to meet the
standards required of the GE rates,
borrowers may be eligible for waivers
under either § 30.86 or § 30.87.
However, the Department is also
concerned about circumstances in
which it has evidence that a program is
failing to meet the GE standards and the
program closes. Such situations may not
result in a waiver under § 30.87 even
though the Department knows that the
borrowers included in the metrics are
facing challenges similar to those where
programs formally fail the measures
once and then close.
The provisions in § 30.88 particularly
would address situations where there
have been data showing failures of GE
metrics, but they are not necessarily
official rates, and the program has
closed. For example, during rulemaking
processes to establish GE regulations,
the Department released debt-toearnings rates about programs across the
country. In January 2017,47 the
Department also produced a round of
official rates under the 2014 GE final
rule 48 but did not publish subsequent
GE rates under those rules. In response
to these rates some institutions
preemptively closed programs that did
46 88
FR 70004 (October 10, 2023).
January 17, 2017 Gainful Employment
Electronic Announcement #100—Upcoming
Release of Final Gainful Employment Debt-toEarnings (D/E) Rates.
48 79 FR 64890 (October 31, 2014).
47 See
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
27584
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
not meet the standards. The Department
believes it is important to provide a
waiver in these situations because these
metrics show similar concerns about the
potential that a borrower may be unable
to successfully repay their loans. We
believe it is reasonable to draw an
inference in favor of the borrower since
the program closed and there will not be
other data available showing the longerterm performance of the program.
While the proposed waiver in § 30.88
would only be available when an
institution or program closes, it is
distinct from closed school discharge.
The purpose of a closed school
discharge is to provide relief to a
borrower who is unable to complete
their program. That is why it excludes
graduates from eligibility. By contrast,
this proposed waiver would provide
relief to borrowers where data shows
that the typical borrower who took out
loans is not getting the benefit of the
bargain. The purpose of the closure
requirement is to address how the
Department would handle situations
where it does not have, and has no way
to obtain, additional data that would
otherwise be needed to take a final
agency action and deny continued title
IV participation if the institution or
program were to continue to fail the
metrics. This section establishes how
the Department would go about drawing
an inference in favor of the borrower to
determine that they did not receive the
benefit of the bargain.
Because the circumstances addressed
in proposed § 30.88 are not ones where
the Department would calculate official
GE rates, we have crafted a framework
to explain how the Secretary would
otherwise assess a GE program’s debt-toearnings rates and earnings premium
measure for purposes of this section.
In § 30.88(a)(2) the Department
explains that we would not apply this
section to GE medical or dental
programs. These are GE programs
identified as Doctor of Medicine (MD),
Doctor of Osteopathy (DO), or Doctor of
Dental Science (DDS) based upon their
level and CIP code. We propose to not
include those programs here because in
past versions of the GE regulations we
have said that students in these
programs would have had their earnings
evaluated after a longer time following
graduation than other types of programs.
The Department does not have data for
this longer measurement period so we
cannot accurately assess these GE
programs.
Section 30.88(a)(3) describes how the
Department would calculate whether a
program fails to meet GE standards.
These definitions for debt-to-earnings
and earnings premium are all modeled
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
on how the Department proposes to
calculate these measures in the recently
finalized GE regulation.49 The
definitions for debt-to-earnings rates are
also similar to what was used in the GE
regulations finalized in 2014.50
The provisions in § 30.88(b) provide
greater detail related to how the
Department would identify programs as
well as how we would calculate typical
earnings and debt payments. In
§ 30.88(b)(1), we propose identifying GE
programs by the six-digit CIP code level,
or at the four-digit CIP code if we did
not have data available. We propose this
to mirror the definition of a GE program
defined in 34 CFR 668.2. We more fully
explain in the 2023 GE final rule 51 our
analysis of data coverage and our basis
for assessing GE programs at the sixdigit CIP code and, where appropriate,
the four-digit CIP code to meet the
minimum n-size requirements for GE
metrics. This approach also recognizes
the data limitations that exist related to
past data used to assess GE programs.
Other provisions of § 30.88(b)
similarly reflect choices made and
explained in greater detail in the 2023
GE final rule. This includes how we
would calculate the annual loan
payment and calculate median annual
earnings.
The language in proposed § 30.88(c)
addresses circumstances where
borrowers attended programs that did
not have GE results calculated at an
institution that has since closed. It
proposes to provide relief to students
who borrowed to enroll in a program at
an institution that closed in which,
prior to the closure, the institution
received a majority of its title IV, HEA
funds from programs that met the
conditions under proposed § 30.88(a)(3)
and there were no metrics calculated for
that program. Because the majority of
the title IV, HEA funds received by the
institution went to failing programs, the
Secretary could reasonably infer that the
title IV, HEA funds that went to other
programs for which there were
insufficient data would have likely
failed, as well, and such borrowers
should be granted relief. Loans from
programs at such an institution where
we did have data showing the program
did not fail the GE metrics would not
result in a waiver.
Finally, § 30.88(d) clarifies that if the
conditions of the waiver are met and the
loan was repaid by a Federal Direct
Consolidation Loan or a Direct
Consolidation Loan that has an
outstanding balance, the Department
49 88
FR 70004 (October 10, 2023).
FR 64890 (October 31, 2014).
51 88 FR 70035, 70127 (October 10, 2023).
50 79
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
would waive the portion of the
outstanding balance of the consolidation
loan attributable to such loan. We
believe that it is logical to waive the
only underlying loan associated with
this waiver that was part of a
consolidation loan. Borrowers who
otherwise consolidated their loans
would have a pathway toward this
waiver and would not have their
chances at a waiver foreclosed because
of the consolidation.
The Committee reached consensus on
proposed § 30.88. The Department has
made one clarifying technical change to
this language in paragraph (a)(2) to
change the word ‘‘this’’ to ‘‘the
program.’’
Part 682—Federal Family Education
Loan (FFEL) Program
Subpart D—Administration of the
Federal Family Education Loan
Programs by a Guaranty Agency Waiver
of FFEL Program Loan Debt (§ 682.403)
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20
U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides that in the
performance of, and with respect to, the
functions, powers, and duties, vested in
him by this part, the Secretary may
enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or
release any right, title, claim, lien, or
demand, however acquired, including
any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 682.403(a) would outline the
procedures under which the Secretary
may determine that a FFEL Program
loan held by a guaranty agency or a
lender qualifies for a waiver of all or a
portion of the outstanding balance and
the steps for providing a waiver. Under
proposed § 682.403(a)(1), the Secretary
would notify the lender that a loan
qualifies for a waiver and the lender
would submit a claim to the guaranty
agency. The guaranty agency would pay
the claim, be reimbursed by the
Secretary, and assign the loan to the
Secretary. After the loan is assigned, the
Secretary would grant the waiver.
Proposed § 682.403(a)(2) would define
the terms ‘‘the lender’’ and ‘‘the
guaranty agency’’ for the purposes of
waiver claims under proposed
§ 682.403.
Proposed § 682.403(b) would specify
the conditions under which the
Secretary waives FFEL Program loans
held by a guaranty agency or a lender.
A FFEL Program loan would qualify for
a waiver under one of the following
conditions—
• The loan first entered repayment on
or before July 1, 2000;
• The borrower has not applied for, or
not successfully applied for, a closed
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
school discharge but otherwise meets
the eligibility requirements for the
discharge; or
• The loan was received for
attendance at an institution that lost its
eligibility to participate in any title IV,
HEA program because of its CDR and
the borrower was included in the cohort
whose debt was used to calculate the
CDR or rates that were the basis for the
loss of eligibility.
Proposed § 682.403(c) would provide
that if the Secretary determines that a
loan qualifies for a waiver, the Secretary
notifies the lender and directs the
lender to submit a waiver claim to the
applicable guaranty agency and to
suspend collection activity, or maintain
a suspension of collection activity, on
the loan.
Proposed § 682.403(d) would describe
the waiver claim procedures. Under
proposed § 682.403(d)(1), the guaranty
agency would be required to establish
and enforce standards and procedures
for the timely filing of waiver claims by
lenders.
Proposed § 682.403(d)(2) would
require the lender to submit a claim for
the full outstanding balance of the loan
to the guaranty agency within 75 days
of the date the lender received the
notification from the Secretary. Under
proposed § 682.403(d)(3), the lender
would be required to provide the
guaranty agency with an original or a
true and exact copy of the promissory
note and the notification from the
Secretary when filing a waiver claim.
Proposed § 682.403(d)(4) would allow a
lender to provide alternative
documentation deemed acceptable to
the Secretary if the lender is not in
possession of an original or true and
exact copy of the promissory note.
Proposed §§ 682.403(d)(5) and (d)(6)
would require the guaranty agency to
review the waiver claim and determine
whether it meets the applicable
requirements. If the guaranty agency
determines that the claim meets the
requirements specified in proposed
§§ 682.403(d)(3) and 682.403(d)(4) the
guaranty agency would be required to
pay the claim within 30 days of the date
the claim was received.
Under proposed § 682.403(d)(7) the
lender would be required to return any
payments received on the loan during
the suspension of collection activity or
after receiving the claim payment to the
sender.
Under proposed § 682.403(d)(8) the
Secretary would reimburse the guaranty
agency for the full amount of a claim
paid to the lender after the agency pays
the claim to the lender. Proposed
§ 682.403(d)(9)(i) would require the
guaranty agency to assign the loan to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
Secretary within 75 days of the date the
guaranty agency pays the claim and
receives the reimbursement payment. If
the guaranty agency is the loan holder,
under proposed § 682.403(d)(9)(ii) the
guaranty agency would be required to
assign the loan on the date that the
guaranty agency receives the notice
from the Secretary.
After the guaranty agency assigns the
loan, the Secretary may waive the
borrower’s obligation to repay up to the
entire outstanding balance of the loan,
as provided under proposed
§ 682.403(d)(10). After the Secretary
grants the waiver, under proposed
§ 682.403(d)(11) the Secretary would
notify the borrower, the lender, and the
guaranty agency that the borrower’s
obligation to repay the debt or a portion
of the debt, has been waived.
Proposed § 682.403(e)(1) would
require a guaranty agency to return any
payments received on the loan during
the suspension of collection activity or
after the guaranty agency assigned the
loan to the Secretary. The guaranty
agency would also be required to notify
the borrower that there is no obligation
to make payments on the loan unless
the borrower received a partial waiver
or unless the Secretary directs
otherwise. Under proposed
§ 682.403(e)(2), the guaranty agency
would remit to the Secretary any
payments received after it has notified
the borrower. Under proposed
§ 682.403(e)(3), if the Secretary receives
any payments on the loan after waiving
the entire outstanding balance on the
loan, the Secretary would return these
payments to the sender.
Proposed § 682.403(f) would provide
that if the conditions for a waiver
specified in proposed § 682.403(b) are
met on a loan that has been repaid by
a Federal Consolidation Loan with an
outstanding balance, the Secretary may
waive the portion of the outstanding
balance of the consolidation loan
attributable to the loan that qualifies for
waiver once the loan has been assigned
to the Secretary.
Reasons: The proposed regulations
applicable to FFEL Program loans held
by a guaranty agency or lender are
intended to mirror some of the proposed
regulations in 34 CFR part 30 that
would apply to FFEL Program loans
held by the Department. Since no new
FFEL Program loans have been made on
or after July 1, 2010, some of the
provisions in part 30 that would apply
to Direct Loans are not applicable to
FFEL Program loans. Therefore, the
proposed FFEL-only regulations are
more limited than the proposed
regulations that would apply to all
student loans held by the Department.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
27585
In proposed § 682.403(b)(1) the
Department proposes to provide a
waiver for a FFEL loan that first entered
repayment at least 25 years ago. The
Department proposes a different time in
repayment requirement for FFEL loans
from what is in proposed § 30.83
because the version of IBR that is
available in the FFEL program only
provides forgiveness after 25 years of
payments. There is no forgiveness
option after 20 years the way there is for
Department-held loans.
The Department proposes to include
§ 682.403(b)(1) because we are
concerned that borrowers who first
entered repayment a long time ago may
not be able to repay their loans in a
reasonable period. It would come with
full compensation for the outstanding
balance to lenders. The existence of
repayment plans that provide
forgiveness after an extended period in
repayment indicates Congress’s concern
with borrowers being stuck in
repayment for an unreasonable period of
time and reflects Congress’s intent that
borrowers have paths to relief, so they
are not stuck with their loans forever.
We are concerned that many borrowers
with older loans have spent years, if not
decades, in repayment before being able
to benefit from those options and might
otherwise be trapped by their debts
until they pass away. We have proposed
applying this provision to loans that
entered repayment on or before the July
1, 2000, because these borrowers will
have been in repayment for all or part
of 25 calendar years or more when the
regulation is implemented. This
approach reflects the more limited data
the Department has in its possession
about commercial FFEL borrowers. We
are proposing 25 years because FFEL
borrowers have access to an income
driven repayment plan that provides
forgiveness after 25 years. Similar to
proposed § 30.83, this provision would
only be exercised once per borrower.
The Committee did not reach
consensus on proposed § 682.403(b)(1).
The Committee did reach consensus
on proposed §§ 682.403(b)(2) and
682.403(b)(3), which would provide
waivers for FFEL borrowers who qualify
for, but have not received, a closed
school discharge and for borrowers who
attended an institution that lost its title
IV eligibility due to high CDRs, if the
borrower was included in the cohort
whose debt was used to calculate the
CDRs that were the basis for the loss of
eligibility. Regarding waivers based on a
school’s loss of title IV eligibility, the
Department modified proposed
§§ 682.403(b)(3) by adding clarifying
language specifying that the borrower’s
loan must have been in the cohort of
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
27586
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
loans that resulted in the school losing
title IV eligibility for a borrower to
qualify for a waiver under this
provision.
The Department proposes waivers for
closed school discharges because that is
a forgiveness opportunity that is
available to FFEL borrowers which we
are concerned that many eligible
borrowers do not appear to be aware of
and, as a result, may be unnecessarily
struggling with unaffordable loans. For
example, a 2021 study by the
Government Accountability Office
found that at least 42 percent of
discharges from 2013 to 2021 were
automatic discharges, indicating that a
substantial share of borrowers may not
have been aware of the potential for
discharge or may have struggled with
the application.52 Further, more than
half of borrowers who received an
automatic discharge were in default on
their loans, and an additional 21 percent
had experienced at least one
delinquency spell that lasted 90 days or
longer.53 Exercising waivers in these
situations would help borrowers who
have a high likelihood of being in
default for loans that they should not
have to repay.
The Department proposes to include
waivers for borrowers who took out
loans that are captured in CDRs that led
to institutional ineligibility because we
are concerned that when the Secretary
cuts off aid to an institution for this
reason it is a sign that a borrower is not
getting the benefit of the bargain. This
provision provides equitable treatment
for the borrowers whose results showed
their loans were not faring well with
those who were protected after that
point because the institution was no
longer eligible to participate in the
Federal student loan programs. One of
the non-Federal negotiators urged the
Department to provide FFEL regulations
that were robust, clear, and detailed.
The Department responded by
providing detailed proposed FFEL
regulations outlining the waiver claims
filing process for waivers granted to
FFEL borrowers whose loans are held by
a private lender or a guaranty agency.
These proposed regulations are modeled
on the regulations in § 682.402
governing other loan discharges in
FFEL, specifically the regulations
governing total and permanent
disability (TPD) discharges. As with
TPD discharges, the Department would
make the determination of eligibility,
52 GAO–21–105373, COLLEGE CLOSURES: Many
Impacted Borrowers Struggled Financially Despite
Being Eligible for Loan Discharges https://
www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-105373.pdf.
53 Ibid.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
rather than the lender or the guaranty
agency before a claim is filed. The
Department would then direct the
lender to file a claim with the guaranty
agency. The claim would be for the
outstanding balance of the loan less any
unpaid late fees and unpaid collection
costs. The process for filing and paying
the claim and assigning the loan to the
Department would be essentially the
same process used for TPD discharge
claims. In the case of a consolidation
loan, the claim would be for the
outstanding principal and interest of the
consolidation loan, even if only a
portion of the consolidation loan
qualifies for a waiver. After the guaranty
agency pays the claim and the
Department reimburses the guaranty
agency, the guaranty agency assigns the
consolidation loan to the Department.
The Department would then waive
repayment on the portion of the
consolidation loan attributable to loans
eligible for a waiver. This is consistent
with proposed § 682.403(f) and several
other provisions in these proposed
regulations that allow the Secretary to
waive a portion of a Federal
Consolidation Loan (or, for Direct
Loans, a Direct Consolidation Loan) if
one or more of the underlying loans
qualifies for a waiver. The Department
would then resume collection on the
portion of the consolidation loan that
was not waived.
The suspension of collection activity,
which is generally authorized for brief
periods during which an application is
submitted, or a claim is filed, would be
deemed to be a forbearance in cases
where payment resumes on the loan
after it has been assigned to the
Secretary.
Once a FFEL Program loan is assigned
to the Department, the Department
would be responsible for furnishing
information about the loan to consumer
reporting agencies and would report the
reduction or elimination of the
outstanding balance to consumer
reporting agencies after granting the
waiver. Guaranty agencies and lenders
would only be responsible for reporting
that the loan has been assigned to the
Department, as they currently do for
TPD discharges.
During negotiated rulemaking, the
Department proposed providing more
time for the claims process, giving 75
days for a lender to submit a claim, and
75 days for the guaranty agency to pay
the claim. The Department believes that
the timeframes are appropriate, since
the Department will have already
determined that the borrower qualifies
for a waiver before notifying the lender.
There would be no requirement that the
lender or guaranty agency conduct an
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
additional review of borrower
eligibility. Therefore, the claims process
would be entirely administrative on the
part of the lender and the guaranty
agency. There would be no need for a
guaranty agency or lender to review an
application or to request additional
information from a borrower, which is
sometimes the case with other loan
discharges. However, the Department
acknowledges that initially there may be
a large volume of FFEL borrowers
qualifying for the waivers specified in
§ 682.403. Therefore, we would work
with guaranty agencies and lenders who
may have difficulty meeting these
timeframes and be flexible in enforcing
the requirements in proposed
§§ 682.403(d)(2) and 682.403(d)(9).
The Committee did not reach
consensus on the proposed regulations
in §§ 682.403(a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) that
would establish the procedures for
processing a waiver claim and stipulate
that if the conditions for a waiver are
met on a loan that has been
consolidated, the Secretary would waive
repayment of the portion of the
consolidation loan attributable to the
loan that qualifies for waiver.
After the third negotiating session, the
Department determined that it would be
appropriate to specify in regulation that,
when filing a waiver claim, a lender
may provide alternative documentation
in the event that the lender does not
possess the original promissory note or
a true and exact copy of the promissory
note. This is consistent with the
Department’s practice with regard to
accepting alternative documentation for
loan assignments.
The Department also noted that the
proposed regulations did not address
the treatment of payments received after
the Department has notified the lender
that the loan qualifies for a waiver and
before the payment of a waiver claim.
Therefore, the Department added
proposed language specifying that
payments on the loan received during
the suspension of collection activity—
which would occur at the start of the
waiver claim process—would be
returned to the sender by either the
lender or by the guaranty agency, as
applicable. The Department believes
that returning payments at this stage of
the process is appropriate, because the
Department has already determined that
the borrower’s loan qualifies for a
waiver. Accepting payments
inadvertently submitted on a loan that
may have its entire outstanding balance
waived would unnecessarily deprive the
borrower of the payment amounts
submitted.
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Executive Orders 12866 (as Modified by
14094) and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) must determine whether this
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of
the Executive Order and subject to
review by OMB. Section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, as amended by
Executive Order 14094, defines a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an
action likely to result in a rule that
may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $200 million or more
(adjusted every 3 years by the
Administrator of OIRA for changes in
gross domestic product), or adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a
sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local,
territorial, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise legal or policy issues for
which centralized review would
meaningfully further the President’s
priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive Order, as specifically
authorized in a timely manner by the
Administrator of OIRA in each case.
This proposed regulatory action will
have an annual effect on the economy
of $200 million or more. Table 4.1 in
this RIA provides an estimate of the net
budget effects of each provision of this
proposed rule. We also provide
estimates of the administrative costs for
these provisions. Because the net budget
effect is larger than $200 million a year,
this proposed regulatory action is
subject to review by OMB under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (as
amended by Executive Order 14094).
Notwithstanding this determination, we
have assessed the potential costs and
benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this proposed regulatory
action and have determined that the
benefits will justify the costs.
We have also reviewed these
regulations under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency—
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
on a reasoned determination that their
benefits justify their costs (recognizing
that some benefits and costs are difficult
to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
and to the extent practicable—the costs
of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes.’’
We are issuing these proposed
regulations only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits would
justify their costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we
selected those approaches that in the
Department’s estimation best balance
the size of the estimated transfer and
qualitative benefits and costs. Based on
the analysis that follows, the
Department believes that these proposed
regulations are consistent with the
principles in Executive Order 13563.
We have also determined that this
regulatory action will not unduly
interfere with State, local, territorial,
and Tribal governments in the exercise
of their governmental functions.
As required by OMB Circular A–4, we
compare the proposed regulations to the
current regulations. In this regulatory
impact analysis, we discuss the need for
regulatory action, the summary of key
proposed provisions, potential costs and
benefits, net budget impacts, and the
regulatory alternatives we considered.
Elsewhere in this section under
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
27587
identify and explain burdens
specifically associated with information
collection requirements.
1. Congressional Review Act
Designation
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
designated that this rule is covered
under 5 U.S.C. 804(2) and (3).
2. Need for Regulatory Action
Postsecondary education is a critical
pathway for entering and succeeding in
the middle class. Generally, earning a
postsecondary credential provides
individuals with a range of personal
benefits in the labor market, including
higher income and lower
unemployment risk.54 In addition to
individual benefits related to earnings
and employment, additional education
provides a host of individual benefits
including greater access to benefits like
health insurance, increased job
satisfaction and overall happiness.55
Increasing levels of postsecondary
attainment also have spillover benefits
for communities and society that benefit
those who never attended or completed
postsecondary education. For example,
researchers have documented that
wages of non-college graduates rise
when the supply of college graduates
increases.56 Increases in education is
also linked to higher civic participation,
reduced crime, and improved health of
future generations.57
The high price of postsecondary
education, however, means that large
54 Barrow, L. & Malamud, O. (2015). Is College a
Worthwhile Investment? Annual Review of
Economics, 7(1), 519–555. Card, D. (1999). The
Causal Effect of Education on Earnings. Handbook
of Labor Economics, 3, 1801–1863.
55 Oreopoulos, P. & Salvanes, K.G. (2011).
Priceless: The Nonpecuniary Benefits of Schooling.
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(1), 159–184.
56 Moretti, Enrico. ‘‘Estimating the social return to
higher education: evidence from longitudinal and
repeated cross-sectional data.’’ Journal of
econometrics 121, no. 1–2 (2004): 175–212.
57 Currie, Janet, and Enrico Moretti. ‘‘Mother’s
education and the intergenerational transmission of
human capital: Evidence from college openings.’’
The Quarterly journal of economics 118, no. 4
(2003): 1495–1532; Lochner, Lance,
‘‘Nonproduction Benefits of Education: Crime,
Health, and Good Citizenship,’’ in E. Hanushek, S.
Machin, and L. Woessmann (eds.), Handbook of the
Economics of Education, Vol. 4, Ch. 2, Amsterdam:
Elsevier Science (2011); Ma, Jennifer, and Matea
Pender. Education Pays 2023: The Benefits of
Higher Education for Individuals and Society.
Washington, DC: College Board. Milligan, Kevin,
Enrico Moretti, and Philip Oreopoulos. ‘‘Does
education improve citizenship? Evidence from the
United States and the United Kingdom.’’ Journal of
public Economics 88, no. 9–10 (2004): 1667–1695.;
Lochner, Lance, and Enrico Moretti. ‘‘The effect of
education on crime: Evidence from prison inmates,
arrests, and self-reports.’’ American economic
review 94, no. 1 (2004): 155–189.
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
27588
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
appreciable changes in who borrows for
college and how much debt they have
taken on over the last several decades.59
For instance, in the early 1990s,
approximately one-third of full-time
undergraduates received Federal
shares of Americans seeking
postsecondary credentials rely on
Federal student loans to pay for
college.58 Though the rate of student
borrowing has declined slightly in
recent years, there have been
student loans.60 Following the Great
Recession, the total dollar amount of
annual student loan borrowing
increased, reaching a peak in the 2010–
11 school year.61 These trends are
shown in Table 2.1.
TABLE 2.1—SHARE OF FULL-TIME UNDERGRADUATES BORROWING FOR COLLEGE AND AMOUNT BORROWED
Share borrowing
federal loans
%
Academic year
2003–2004
2007–2008
2011–2012
2015–2016
2019–2020
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
Average amount
borrowed in
given year
(2019–20 dollars)
Median amount
borrowed in
given year
(2019–20 dollars)
$7,419
9,101
8,417
8,643
6,526
$6,306
6,804
7,347
7,017
6,250
46
52
53
50
42
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Note: Excludes Parent PLUS loans. Data comes from the 2016 and 2020 National Postsecondary Aid Study (available at https://nces.ed.gov/
datalab/powerstats/table/moxnjs and https://nces.ed.gov/datalab/powerstats/table/kwjatm).
Federal student loans allow students
and families who lack the necessary
funds to pay for postsecondary
education with their current resources
to borrow money to pay for that
education that can be repaid using the
earnings gains that come from obtaining
a credential. While this works out for
many borrowers, too often Federal loans
do not have the intended result.
Student loan debt can add to the risk
of going to college, because students
who experienced an income shock, had
bad luck in the job market, or went to
a school that misled them about benefits
can be burdened by their loan debt
obligations. For some borrowers, the
extent of debt needed to finance a
credential is more than they can sustain
from the earnings gains they obtained.
These borrowers may see some returns
from their education, but they aren’t
sufficient to repay their debt in a
reasonable timeframe.
Many borrowers with lower incomes
or who are otherwise financially
vulnerable, such as retirees and those
who have reported challenges making
ends meet, have struggled to meet their
student loan payments.62 Student loan
payment challenges are also commonly
faced by borrowers who do not
complete their credentials. An estimated
40 percent of borrowers who began
postsecondary education in 2012 had
student debt, but did not have a degree
five years later.63 Individuals with
greater educational attainment tend to
have higher earnings, and borrowers
who do not complete their educational
programs are particularly likely to have
poor labor market outcomes.64
Borrowers with debt but no degree can
be in a situation where they borrowed
in anticipation of degree-boosted
earnings, but instead need to manage
loan payments without such wage gains.
Through other actions, the
Department is working to make certain
that students gain value from their
postsecondary education. For instance,
the Department published final
Financial Value Transparency and
Gainful Employment rules in 2023 that
aim to protect borrowers from careertraining programs that do not provide
sufficient financial value for their
graduates and to better inform all
families about the financial returns they
could expect from programs.65 Those
actions are forward looking, however,
and do not address some of the
challenges faced by students in the past.
For example, once fully implemented,
the 2023 Financial Value Transparency
and Gainful Employment rules will rely
on outcomes data from previous
students to prevent future students from
using federal aid for programs where
students are unlikely to be able to afford
their debt payments. However, while
future students will gain protection,
past students whose experiences were
documented have limited avenues for
relief.
The potential debt relief contemplated
in this proposed rule could help some
borrowers who receive relief to better
afford necessities, prepare for
retirement, invest in other assets, and
safeguard against financial shocks. This
relief may also help guard against a
‘‘chilling effect’’ on postsecondary
attainment, as prospective students may
avoid higher education due to the
negative consequences of debt
experienced by many middle-income
and low-income borrowers. And if
students decide not to attend higher
education because they are worried
about the risk related to student loans,
then communities, and the country
clearly will miss out on the
aforementioned benefits that increasing
levels of postsecondary education
brings, including higher economic
growth, higher civic participation,
reduced crime, and improved health.
Challenges with repaying Federal
student loans manifest in several ways
in broader trends within the portfolio.
Prior to the start of the national pause
on student loan interest, repayment, and
collections in 2020, about one million
borrowers a year defaulted on their
Federal student loans for the first
58 According to 2022 Digest of Education
Statistics (Table 331.10), 34.6 percent of
undergraduates received Federal student loans for
the 2019–20 academic year.
59 Fry, Richard. ‘‘The changing profile of student
borrowers.’’ (2014). Pew Research Center. https://
www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2014/10/07/
the-changing-profile-of-student-borrowers/.
60 U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics. Digest of Education
Statistics 2022. Table 331.60.
61 Ma, Jennifer and Matea Pender (2023), Trends
in College Pricing and Student Aid 2023, New York:
College Board.
62 https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/
08/student-debt-weighed-heavily-on-millions-evenbefore-pandemic.html; https://
www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/frbp/assets/
consumer-finance/reports/cfi-sl-1-paymentsresumption.pdf; https://www.aarp.org/money/
credit-loans-debt/info-2021/student-debt-crisis-forolder-americans.html.
63 https://nces.ed.gov/datalab/powerstats/table/
Lcvndq.
64 Looney, Adam and Constantine Yannelis. ‘‘A
Crisis in Student Loans? How Changes in the
Characteristics of Borrowers and in the Institutions
they Attended Contributed to Rising Loan
Defaults.’’ Brookings Papers on Economic Activity,
2015; Ma, Jennifer, and Matea Pender. Education
Pays 2023: The Benefits of Higher Education for
Individuals and Society. Washington, DC: College
Board.
65 88 FR 70004 (October 10, 2023).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
time.66 While some of these borrowers
will successfully exit default, many
others will likely remain in default for
years if not decades. According to
analysis of the Department’s internal
data, as of the end of 2020, there were
about 1.5 million borrowers with EDheld loans in default who had been in
that status for at least nine years.
The proposed regulations would
permit the Secretary to provide relief to
borrowers in the form of waiving some
or all of the outstanding balance of a
loan. The Secretary could provide this
relief to borrowers where collection is
not in the interest of the Department
because certain borrowers would not
otherwise have access to relief that is
appropriate under the circumstances. In
some cases, the proposed relief aligns to
changes in the student loan programs
that have recognized the necessity of
relief, but where such changes took
effect after the point at which many
borrowers obtained their loans. These
subsequent changes implicate
considerations of equity and fairness, as
well as the low likelihood of a borrower
repaying the loan in a reasonable time
period, and the costs of enforcing the
debt which are not justified by the
expected benefits of continued
collection.
The proposed rules address several
distinct situations where the
Department believes the use of waiver is
appropriate. Though a borrower may
qualify for a waiver under multiple
provisions, each of these proposed
regulatory sections is distinct and
separate from the other.
One section of the proposed rule
would address situations where
borrowers have loan balances that
exceed what they originally borrowed.
This provision would address the
problem of prior excess interest accrual
and capitalization, which the
Department has considered at length.67
The Department has addressed these
problems going forward through the
SAVE repayment plan that limits the
accrual of unpaid interest when
borrowers make their required
payments, as well as separate regulatory
changes that eliminated all nonstatutory capitalization events starting
July 1, 2023.68 But these new policies do
not provide relief to borrowers with
years or even decades of accrued
interest, and such borrowers continue to
experience the harms of excess interest
as described below.
Any loan subject to interest requires
a borrower to repay more than the
original balance of the loan. For
example, a $10,000 loan with a five
percent interest that is repaid over 10
years would result in total payments of
just over $12,700. However, when a
borrower’s outstanding balance exceeds
what they originally borrowed, they will
need to pay significantly more to retire
their debts than they would have under
the repayment schedule they had at the
start of repayment. This can extend the
borrower’s time in repayment, including
the possibility that a loan is never
repaid. As the Department has noted in
prior regulatory actions that address
interest accrual and capitalization going
forward, borrowers whose balances have
grown excessively may experience
additional psychological and financial
barriers to repayment and be more likely
to fall into delinquency or default.69
Since the new policies reflected in the
SAVE plan do not address prior balance
growth, many borrowers with years of
accrued interest face the negative effects
of excess interest accrual. Indeed, many
comments that the Department received
in July 2023 when the Department
solicited input from the public at the
start of the student debt relief negotiated
rulemaking process, similarly shared
that balance growth has negative
psychological effects on repayment.
Many borrowers expressed that they felt
that having unanticipated balances that
far exceeded what they had originally
borrowed made it impossible to ever
repay their loans and indicated that they
would be better able to afford their debts
if balances could be brought down to
the amount they originally borrowed
and expected to repay. Borrowers who
spoke during the public comment
periods provided during negotiated
rulemaking sessions reiterated these
concerns.
The proposed rules contain a separate
section that focuses on loans that first
entered repayment a long time ago and
are still outstanding. Under the standard
repayment plan borrowers repay their
66 https://studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/
DLEnteringDefaults.xls.
67 See, e.g., 88 FR 43820, 43851 (July 10, 2023).
68 Id.; 87 FR 65904, 65957 (November 1, 2022).
69 See, e.g. 88 FR 43820, 43951 (July 10, 2023);
88 FR 1894, 1905 (January 11, 2023); 87 FR 41878
(July 13, 2022), 41919; 87 FR 65904, 65957
(November 1, 2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
27589
debt over 10 years by making equal
monthly installments. More recently,
borrowers have increasingly turned to
IDR plans that provide forgiveness after
either 20 or 25 years when the borrower
makes payments that are largely driven
by their income and family size. As a
result, essentially every borrower has
access to a repayment option that allows
them to be debt-free by some point
between 10 and 25 years of repayment.
Unfortunately, many borrowers see
their loans persist long past these
points. Many of these borrowers have
spent considerable time in default
where they are already subject to
powerful collection tools that can result
in the garnishment of wages, seizure of
tax refunds, negative credit reporting,
and even litigation. Analysis of
Department data reveals that among
borrowers who entered repayment over
25 years ago and whose loans are still
outstanding, 74 percent have been in
default at some point, while among
borrowers whose loans matured over 20
years ago, 64 percent have been in
default at some point. Analysis by the
Urban Institute suggested that of
borrowers who took out loans before
1990 and who still had debt recorded on
their consumer report in 2018, 16
percent were in default on some or all
of their student debt as of 2018.70
Borrowers with older loans also
would not have initially been eligible
for the significant number of additional
benefits created for borrowers over the
last several years. The presence of these
benefits, such as reduced payments and
shorter timelines to forgiveness, may
have helped many of these borrowers
better manage their debt and retire it
sooner.
Furthermore, loans that have been in
repayment for a long time tend to be
held by older borrowers who are closer
to or beyond retirement age, at which
point their income may decline.
Analysis of Department data reveals that
among borrowers who entered
repayment 20 years ago and whose
loans are still outstanding, the median
borrower age was 54 years, and 64
percent are older than the age of 50.
70 Blagg, Kristin. (2020) When Student Loans
Linger: Characteristics of Borrowers Who Hold
Loans Over Multiple Decades. Urban Institute.
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/
publication/101492/when_student_loans_
linger.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
27590
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
A different provision of the proposed
rule addresses the challenge where
borrowers continue to repay loans even
though, if they applied, they would be
eligible to have their debts forgiven,
either through one of the IDR plans or
targeted forgiveness opportunities
authorized by the HEA, such as PSLF.
Historically, the Department has seen
that borrowers frequently are not aware
of the steps they need to take to get
relief and end up making payments or
put themselves at avoidable risk of
default and delinquency. For example,
for years, the Department had a data
match with the Social Security
Administration that identified
borrowers who were eligible for a total
and permanent disability discharge.
Despite being told they were eligible,
hundreds of thousands of borrowers did
not apply.
In 2021, the Department changed its
regulations to automatically provide a
discharge to borrowers identified as
eligible for this benefit through this
match. This included an option for
borrowers to opt out. As a result,
323,000 borrowers received discharges
for the first time when the Department
re-ran this match with the new policy
and thousands more continue to be
approved for automatic relief each
quarter.71 Policies like the automatic
discharges based upon the SSA match
show the importance of using
approaches that grant forgiveness to
borrowers without requiring them to
find out about benefits and apply, one
of the key goals behind this proposed
provision.
Similarly, a substantial share of
borrowers fail to or delay recertifying
their income for purposes of an IDR
plan after their first year in the plan,
even when it appears that remaining on
IDR would benefit them financially.72
Transaction costs and lack of
information, among other factors, can
negatively impact take-up of public and
social programs. This is not unique to
student loans, as evidenced from a wide
variety of programs such as those
related to food and income supports
also demonstrate that not all who can
benefit actually sign up.73 However,
take-up of social programs can be
increased by reducing administrative
costs and burdens, including by having
automatic enrollment.74
Finally, there are many borrowers
who received loans to attend programs
or institutions that lost access to the title
IV, HEA programs after those programs
or institutions failed to meet required
accountability standards, failed to
deliver sufficient financial value, or
closed during the process to determine
whether the institution or program
should lose access to title IV aid for
those reasons. In these situations, the
Department or other entities took action
to protect borrowers and taxpayers from
the harms caused by these programs or
institutions. However, students who
borrowed to enroll in programs or
institutions that later lost access to the
title IV, HEA programs and whose
experiences were captured in the
outcomes measures that lead to such
protection, are still left to repay the
debt.
The Department is concerned that
requiring such borrowers to continue to
repay their debts puts them at increased
risk of default and delinquency due to
the identified flaws at the program or
institution. For example, the recent
Financial Value Transparency and
Gainful Employment regulations (88 FR
70004) (2023 GE rule) protect students
from financial harm that can come about
if they attend a Gainful Employment
program that consistently produces
graduates with very low earnings or
earnings that are too low to repay
typical debt. If the experience of
borrowers upon which those failing
outcome measures are based are used to
support cutting off future title IV aid to
the institution, then those borrowers
who attended these failing programs
should also receive similar protections.
The Department believes that these
proposed regulations would
appropriately address the challenging
situations outlined above that can affect
the likelihood that a borrower repays
their loan in a reasonable timeframe.
Through these targeted and distinct
exercises of waiver the Department
would deliver relief to borrowers who
need the assistance, while continuing to
collect from borrowers who are able to
repay.
Summary of Proposed Key Provisions
Table 2.2 below summarizes the
proposed provisions in the NPRM. It
does not include technical changes.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
TABLE 2.2—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED KEY PROVISIONS
Provision
Regulatory section
Description of proposed provision
Use of Federal Claims Collections Standards
(FCCS).
Creation of a new subpart related to waiver ..............
§ 30.70(a)(1)(c)(1) .................
§ 30.80 ..................................
Waiver when current balance exceeds the balance
upon entering repayment for borrowers on an income-driven repayment plan.
§ 30.81 ..................................
Waiver when the current balance exceeds the balance upon entering repayment.
§ 30.82 ..................................
Waiver when a loan first entered repayment 20 or
25 years ago.
§ 30.83 ..................................
Waiver when a borrower is eligible for forgiveness
based upon repayment plan.
§ 30.84 ..................................
71 https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/over323000-federal-student-loan-borrowers-receive-58billion-automatic-total-and-permanent-disabilitydischarges.
72 Herbst, Daniel. ‘‘The impact of income-driven
repayment on student borrower outcomes.’’
American Economic Journal: Applied Economics
15, no. 1 (2023): 1–25.; Conkling, Thomas S., and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
Indicate the Secretary may use the FCCS standards to determine whether to
compromise a debt.
Create a new section identifying when the Secretary may waive Federal student loan debt owed to the Department.
The Secretary may waive the amount by which a loan’s current outstanding
balance exceeds the balance upon entering repayment for borrowers in an
income-driven repayment plan whose income falls at or below certain
thresholds.
The Secretary may waive the lesser of $20,000 or the amount by which a
loan’s current outstanding balance exceeds the balance upon entering repayment for borrowers who do not meet the requirements of § 30.81.
The Secretary may waive outstanding loan balances for a loan that first entered repayment on or before July 1, 2000 or July 1, 2005, depending on
whether a borrower has loans for graduate study.
The Secretary may waive outstanding loan balances if a borrower is not enrolled in but is otherwise eligible for forgiveness under certain repayment
plans.
Christa Gibbs. ‘‘Borrower experiences on incomedriven repayment.’’ Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau Office of Research Reports Series 19–10
(2019).
73 See the review in Ko & Moffit (2022). Take-up
of Social Benefits. NBER Working Paper 30148.
Also see various articles in ‘‘Administrative
Burdens and Inequality in Policy Implementation’’
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Part I and Part II in RSF: The Russell Sage
Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, volume
9, issues 4 and 5, 2023.
74 Currie, Janet (2006). The Take-up of Social
Benefits. In Public Policy and the Income
Distribution. Russell Sage Foundation. Herd &
Moynihan (2018). Administrative Burdens. Russell
Sage Foundation.
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
27591
TABLE 2.2—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED KEY PROVISIONS—Continued
Provision
Regulatory section
Description of proposed provision
Waiver when a loan is eligible for a targeted forgiveness opportunity.
§ 30.85 ..................................
Waiver based upon Secretarial actions .....................
§ 30.86 ..................................
Waiver following closures prior to Secretarial actions
§ 30.87 ..................................
Waiver for programs with high debt-to-earnings rates
or low median earnings.
§ 30.88 ..................................
Waiver of commercial FFEL debts .............................
§ 682.403 ..............................
The Secretary may waive the outstanding balance of a loan when the Secretary determines that a borrower has not successfully applied for, but otherwise meets the eligibility requirements for, any loan discharge, cancellation,
or forgiveness opportunity under part 682 or 685.
The Secretary may waive the outstanding balance of a loan if the institution or
program has lost access to title IV, HEA programs for reasons stemming entirely or in part to failing accountability standards related to student outcomes or failing to deliver sufficient financial value.
The Secretary may waive the outstanding balance of a loan used to enroll in a
program or institution that failed to meet required student outcome measures
or which was subject to an unresolved Department action related to failing to
provide sufficient financial value, and the program or institution closed prior
to the finalization of such actions.
The Secretary may waive the outstanding balance of a loan used to enroll in a
program or institution that closed and prior to the closure had unacceptably
high debt-to-earnings rates or median earnings that failed to exceed those of
a high school graduate.
Lays out procedures for paying claims to FFEL loan holders so the Secretary
may waive commercial FFEL loans that first entered repayment at least 25
years ago, that are eligible for a closed school loan discharge where a borrower has not successfully applied, or owed by a borrower in the cohort
whose debt was used to calculate the institution’s failing cohort default rates
that resulted in ineligibility for title IV, HEA programs.
3. Discussion of Costs, Benefits and
Transfers
Overall, the proposed rules would
result in costs in the form of transfers
from the Federal Government to student
loan borrowers. The size of these
transfers would vary based upon the
regulatory provision in question. The
Department believes that these transfers
provide significant benefits to borrowers
in the form of waiving their obligation
to repay some or all of their Federal
student loan debt. The Department
would also see benefits from waivers
granted as a result of the provisions in
these draft rules by preventing or
reducing costly collection on loans that
are unlikely to be repaid in a reasonable
period. Similar benefits would accrue to
private holders of loans from the FFEL
Program. Finally, the proposed rules
would result in some costs in the form
of administrative expenses for the
Department to implement these
provisions. When considering all these
factors, the Department believes that the
benefits from these proposed rules
outweigh the costs. What follows is a
discussion of costs, benefits, and
transfers for each of the distinct
regulatory provisions.
Data Used in This RIA
This section describes the data used
in the regulatory impact analysis. To
generate information about the expected
number of borrowers who would receive
relief under these proposed rules, the
Department relied upon non-public
records contained in the administrative
data the Department uses to administer
the title IV, HEA programs.
The primary data used in the RIA is
a five percent random sample of the
Federal student loan portfolio with at
least one open title IV, HEA student
loan as of December 31, 2023. We are
using a random sample including over
two million borrowers, but we present
all estimates in the analyses below in
terms of the full portfolio. The data we
use for modeling in the RIA are stored
in the National Student Loan Data
System (NSLDS), maintained by the
Department’s Office of Federal Student
Aid. The Department determined that a
sample of this size was appropriate to
provide reasonable estimates of the
impact of the proposed regulation. A
sample of this size is also similar to
what the Department uses in budgeting
modeling and the modeling of net
budget impacts of its rules.
To provide context for data on which
borrowers would be affected by different
provisions, Table 3.1 describes the
characteristics of the sample, which is
representative of the student loan
portfolio overall.75 This sample is
different from the one used to produce
the net budget impact described
elsewhere in this RIA. A further
description of the sample used for cost
modeling can be found in the net budget
impact section of this RIA.
TABLE 3.1—CHARACTERISTICS OF BORROWERS IN THE SAMPLE USED TO ESTIMATE THE EFFECTS OF THIS PROPOSED
RULE
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Percent
Share of Federal Student Loan Borrowers Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans .....................................................................................................................................................
Ever Received a Pell Grant * ........................................................................................................................................................
Ever Had a Default .......................................................................................................................................................................
Age <30 ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Age 30–50 ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Age 50+ ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad ....................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad ................................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School ....................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years ........................................................................................................................................
75 We use a random sample of borrowers where
sample descriptive statistics match those of the full
portfolio.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
9
62
27
31
49
20
44
35
19
47
27592
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3.1—CHARACTERISTICS OF BORROWERS IN THE SAMPLE USED TO ESTIMATE THE EFFECTS OF THIS PROPOSED
RULE—Continued
Percent
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10–20 Years .....................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years ........................................................................................................................................
33
11
Notes: Based on five percent random sample of Federal student loan borrowers. All numbers are rounded. Highest level enrolled is sourced
from loan data for the academic level for which the student borrowed; unless otherwise specified, this could include borrowers who have exited
school, and also students in school.
* Pell Grant status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered repayment on their last loan before 1999. As such, these figures may understate the share of borrowers who are Pell Grant recipients.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
To understand repayment outcomes
for a constant set of borrowers over
time, we also use a random sample of
borrowers who had their last Federal
student loan mature in 2012 and follow
these borrowers for 10 years to
understand repayment trends.76 By
2023, some borrowers in this sample
have paid down their loans, but a
substantial share still have a loan
balance. These data provide a
perspective of repayment progress for
the length of the standard repayment
plan, which is 10 years. These data also
come from the NSLDS maintained by
the Department’s Federal Student Aid
office.
Because it uses an income limit, for
analyses of eligibility related to
§§ 30.81, these data were supplemented
with publicly available data from the
U.S. Census Bureau, which we used to
impute information about borrower
incomes based on individuals with
similar demographic and educational
characteristics from Census data.77 For
analyses related to § 30.85, data from
NSLDS was supplemented with
publicly available data on closed
schools from Federal Student Aid’s
website.78 For analyses related to
§§ 30.86, 30.87, and 30.88, data from
NSLDS was supplemented with
publicly available data from the ‘‘2022
Program Performance Data’’ that was
released by the Department with the
2023 GE rule and historical cohort
default rate (CDR) data.79
76 This comparison is based on historical data,
which may be different than future trends, which
is a necessary tradeoff to consider medium- or longterm repayment trajectories for borrowers.
77 Because imputed income is an approximation,
we also estimate the number of borrowers who
could be eligible, regardless of income. To the
extent that a larger or smaller number of borrowers
qualify under § 30.81 because of income, then the
number of borrowers that qualified under § 30.82
would decline or increase by the equivalent
number.
78 As of February 15, 2024. Available at https://
www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/PEPS/
closedschools.html.
79 The 2022 Program Performance Data is
available for download at: https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/05/19/
2023-09647/financial-value-transparency-andgainful-employment-ge-financial-responsibility-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
Analysis of Costs, Benefits, and
Transfers for Each Proposed Regulatory
Section
The sections that follow contain a
discussion of the costs, benefits, and
transfers for the different proposed
regulatory provisions if the Secretary
chooses to grant waivers under such
provisions. Each of these provisions
would include administrative costs for
the Department to implement these
changes. Because these administrative
costs generally represent baseline
expenses that would occur in order to
implement any one of these provisions,
we provide a separate discussion of
administrative costs at the end of this
part of the RIA.
§ 30.81 Waiver when the current
balance exceeds the balance upon
entering repayment for borrowers on an
IDR plan.
The proposed rules would result in
costs in the form of transfers from the
Department to IDR borrowers in the
form of waiving the amount of accrued
interest and capitalized interest on an
outstanding loan. Waiving these
amounts would reduce future payments
by borrowers to the Department. They
would also create administrative costs
for the Department to implement, which
are discussed at the very end of this
subsection of the RIA.
The extent of transfers and their
associated cost would vary significantly
depending on the borrower and their
repayment experience. The cost of such
transfers for borrowers enrolled in an
IDR plan would be small in many cases.
IDR plans offer forgiveness for
borrowers after a set number of monthly
payments (typically either 240 or 300
payments, though the SAVE plan can
provide forgiveness after as few as 120
payments). Prior to the creation of the
SAVE plan, a borrower whose IDR
payment was insufficient to cover all
the accumulating interest was likely to
see their outstanding balance grow
beyond what they originally borrowed.
administrative, historical cohort default rate data is
available at: https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledgecenter/topics/default-management/archived-presspackages.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
That is because borrowers were
responsible for all unpaid interest,
except for what accumulated on a
subsidized loan for the first three
consecutive years in repayment; or if
they were on REPAYE, they would be
responsible for 50 percent of interest not
covered on the monthly payment for the
first three years of repayment for
unsubsidized loans and all periods
beyond the first three years of
repayment for all loan types.
In the final rule that created the SAVE
plan, the Department estimated that 70
percent of borrowers on IDR had
monthly payments that did not cover
the full amount of accumulating
interest.80 For example, a borrower who
originally took out $30,000 in
unsubsidized loans at a five percent
interest rate could see as much as
$30,000 in accumulated interest
forgiven at the end of 20 years if they
had a $0 monthly payment for that
whole period. That means significant
portions of the amounts being waived
under these regulations are likely to be
forgiven later in repayment anyway. The
remaining portion that was likely to be
repaid would represent a transfer from
the Department to borrowers. That said,
borrowers still receive a benefit from
having these amounts waived now
instead of being forgiven later. The
Department received numerous public
comments from borrowers about the
negative effects they experience from
seeing their balances grow even while
making payments. Those comments
evidence the significant psychological
effects felt by borrowers in trying to
manage their payments. Providing relief
from growing balances would address
those concerns highlighted by
borrowers.
Borrowers seeking PSLF may see
similar benefits. For these public service
workers, waiving accrued or capitalized
interest will generally represent the
expense of waiving amounts now that
would otherwise be forgiven when the
borrower hits the ten-year forgiveness
period. Like IDR forgiveness, the cost of
80 88
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
FR 43851 (July 10, 2023).
17APP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
this transfer will depend on how much
the waived amounts would have been
repaid.
We estimate that about 6.4 million
borrowers will receive relief under
§ 30.81.81 Under our estimate for
§ 30.81, for modeling purposes, we do
not assume that borrowers will switch
into an IDR plan in order to receive a
waiver under this provision; these
borrowers are captured under § 30.82.
Table 3.2 shows the demographic
characteristics of borrowers who would
be eligible to receive a waiver under this
proposal. Among those who would be
eligible for relief under this provision,
27593
76 percent received a Pell Grant at some
point during their postsecondary career,
68 percent are women, and around onethird spent two years or less in higher
education. Over half of these borrowers
have been in repayment for at least 10
years. In addition, nearly one-quarter
had been in default at some point.
TABLE 3.2—ESTIMATED NUMBER AND CHARACTERISTICS OF BORROWERS WHO WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR A WAIVER
UNDER § 30.81
Number of Borrowers Receiving Any Forgiveness under this provision ............................................................................................
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans .....................................................................................................................................................
Ever Received a Pell Grant * ........................................................................................................................................................
Ever Had a Default .......................................................................................................................................................................
Age <30 ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Age 30–50 ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Age 50+ ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad ....................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad ................................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School ....................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years ........................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10–20 Years .....................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years ........................................................................................................................................
6.4 M
4%
76%
24%
20%
64%
15%
35%
38%
27%
45%
47%
8%
Notes: Results from a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio. All numbers are rounded. Borrowers are considered on IDR if the loan
is in repayment on any IDR plan, including plans where the borrower no longer has a partial financial hardship.
* Pell Grant status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered repayment on their last loan before 1999. As such, these figures may understate the share of borrowers who are Pell Grant recipients.
Borrowers on IDR plans are
particularly likely to see their balances
grow over time. We examined a sample
panel of borrowers who were enrolled
in any IDR plan for at least three years
from 2012 to 2022 and compared them
to borrowers who were enrolled in a
standard ten-year repayment plan for at
least three years. As shown in Table 3.3,
borrowers who were enrolled in any IDR
plan for at least three years were more
likely than borrowers with at least three
years in a standard repayment plan to
have their balance grow. By 2022,
borrowers who spent a substantial
amount of time repaying under IDR
were 12 percentage points more likely to
have seen their balance grow than
borrowers repaying on a standard plan.
TABLE 3.3—SHARE OF BORROWERS WITH BALANCES GREATER THAN WHAT THEY OWED UPON ENTERING REPAYMENT
At least 3 years
in standard
repayment
(percent)
Year
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
.............................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................
65
59
52
46
42
38
34
32
31
29
At least 3 years
in IDR
(percent)
81
79
75
71
67
64
60
58
56
54
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Notes: Based on a sample of borrowers who last entered repayment on a non-consolidated loan in 2012. All numbers are rounded. Borrowers
who were both on IDR for more than three years and on a standard ten-year repayment plan for more than three years are excluded from the
analysis.
§ 30.82 Waiver when the current
balance exceeds the balance upon
entering repayment.
Borrowers who would be eligible for
this provision include some IDR
borrowers whose incomes are too high
to qualify for relief under § 30.81 and
also non-IDR borrowers. A substantial
portion of IDR borrowers experience
balance growth because their income-
based payments do not fully cover the
accruing interest on their loans. For
non-IDR borrowers, the extent of
transfers will be dependent upon their
repayment history. All of the standard,
81 Additionally, we imputed income to provide an
approximation of borrowers’ incomes to estimate
how many borrowers would qualify under this
provision. However, because imputed income is an
approximation, we also estimate the number of
borrowers who could be eligible, regardless of
income. In this estimate, 7.0 million borrowers have
balance growth and are enrolled in an IDR plan.
Because this estimate does not use an income limit,
this number serves as a likely upper bound on the
number of borrowers who would receive a waiver
under § 30.81. If there were a larger number of
borrowers that qualified under § 30.81, then the
number of borrowers that qualified under § 30.82
would decline by the equivalent number.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
27594
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
extended, and graduated repayment
plans require borrowers to at least cover
monthly accruing interest with their
monthly payment. However, if
borrowers spend time in deferment,
forbearances, delinquency, or default,
they will accrue interest that can be
capitalized into principal. For borrowers
in a deferment, interest that accrues on
their unsubsidized Stafford or PLUS
loans will be added to their principal
balance when they exit the deferment.
The same is true for borrowers who left
a forbearance prior to the payment
pause. However, regulations that went
into effect on July 1, 2023, ended the
practice of capitalizing interest for
borrowers when they leave a
forbearance going forward.
Many of the borrowers who would be
eligible to receive a waiver under this
proposed regulation spent time in
statuses that have broader societal
value. For instance, some borrowers
were in deferment or forbearance
because they served in active-duty
military or the national guard. Thirty-six
percent of borrowers who first entered
postsecondary education in 2003–04
and received at least one military or law
enforcement loan deferment had owed
more than they did upon entering
repayment twelve years later.82
Borrowers who used a forbearance or
deferment to avoid default because of
unemployment or economic hardship,
and now find themselves with loan
balances they will struggle to retire in a
reasonable period, would also benefit
from this proposal. Sixty-three percent
of borrowers who started their
education in 2003–04 and received at
least one economic hardship deferment
owed more than they did upon entering
repayment 12 years later.83
We estimate that 19.1 million
borrowers would be eligible for relief
under § 30.82. This number does not
include borrowers currently on IDR who
would be eligible for a waiver under
§ 30.81. However, it does include some
borrowers who are on IDR but whose
incomes are too high to qualify for a
waiver under § 30.81.84 To get a sense
of the effect of this policy, Table 3.4
below models the characteristics of
borrowers who have experienced
balance growth in excess of their
balance at repayment entry. Among
those whose balance is at least $1 above
what they owed upon entering
repayment, 68 percent ever received a
Pell Grant, and 38 percent ever
defaulted. Almost half of these
borrowers only enrolled for the first year
or two of their undergraduate education
and around 80 percent only enrolled for
undergraduate education.
TABLE 3.4—ESTIMATED NUMBER AND CHARACTERISTICS OF BORROWERS WHO WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR WAIVERS
UNDER § 30.82
Number of Borrowers Receiving Any Forgiveness Under this Provision ...........................................................................................
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans .....................................................................................................................................................
Ever Received a Pell Grant * ........................................................................................................................................................
Ever Had a Default .......................................................................................................................................................................
Age <30 ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Age 30–50 ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Age 50+ ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad ....................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad ................................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School ....................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years ........................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10–20 Years .....................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years ........................................................................................................................................
19.0 M
12%
68%
38%
26%
51%
23%
49%
30%
19%
52%
37%
11%
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Notes: Results from a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio. All numbers are rounded. Borrowers are considered to have experienced balance growth if they owe at least $1 above their balance at the start of repayment. Commercial FFEL loans and borrowers who are currently in school or have loans that have not yet entered repayment are excluded.
* Pell Grant status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered repayment on their last loan before 1999. As such, these figures may understate the share of borrowers who are Pell Grant recipients.
One way of contextualizing the
experience of borrowers who have
experienced balance growth is to follow
a cohort of borrowers over time. For this
analysis, the Department examined data
over a 10-year period for a group of
borrowers who last entered repayment
in 2012, to the end of 2022. Borrowers
are grouped by either: having paid off
their loans by the end of 2022, owing
less than their balance at repayment, or
owing more than their balance at
repayment. Table 3.5 shows the time
spent in statuses (expressed in months)
where borrowers are not actively paying
or may be paying less than covered
interest in an IDR plan.
In the sample, among borrowers who
are still in repayment, borrowers who
still owe more than they owed at the
start of repayment 10 years later spent
much longer in forbearance or
deferment than borrowers whose loan
balance has not grown. The average and
median amounts of time a borrower who
experienced balance growth spent in
forbearance were 30 and 23 months,
respectively. This is more than twice the
amount of time spent in forbearance for
borrowers who did not have balance
growth. Similarly, borrowers in the
sample who experienced balance
growth were in deferment for longer
periods than those who did not
experience balance growth. Borrowers
in the sample with balance growth also
had longer average periods of default
than borrowers still in repayment, but
without balance growth, and were more
likely to be using an IDR plan to repay
their debt.
82 https://nces.ed.gov/datalab/powerstats/table/
sejwfb.
83 https://nces.ed.gov/datalab/powerstats/table/
sejwfb.
84 As noted earlier in footnote 25, we estimated
a sensitivity of the number of borrowers who could
be eligible, regardless of income.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
27595
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3.5—MONTHS IN CERTAIN STATUSES AMONG BORROWERS WHO ENTERED REPAYMENT IN 2012
2012 Borrowers with no balance
growth by end of 2022
Average
Forbearance .....................................................................................................
Deferment ........................................................................................................
Default ..............................................................................................................
IDR ...................................................................................................................
Median
13
7
15
12
2012 Borrowers with balance
growth by end of 2022
Average
5
0
0
0
Median
30
11
30
27
23
0
0
0
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Notes: Based on a random sample of approximately 150,000 borrowers who last entered repayment on a non-consolidated loan in 2012. All
numbers are rounded. A borrower is considered to have spent a year in IDR if they are in an IDR plan as of the end of a given year (including
non-partial financial hardship) and did not spend all of their previous year in a non-payment status (forbearance, deferment, or default). Months
are rounded to the nearest month.
This section would provide the
Secretary with discretionary waiver
authority that could create costs for the
Department due to the transfers that
arise from waiving some loan amounts.
However, because the waivers in this
proposal would not result in forgiving
any of the original principal, the
government would still be in a position
to collect the full amount originally
disbursed.
While the proposed regulations would
create costs in the form of transfers for
the Federal Government, it would also
provide benefits. As previously
described, recent borrower reports
suggest that growing loan balances can
lead to both financial and psychological
challenges to successful repayment by
borrowers.85 The Department also must
pay for either the ongoing servicing of
loans in repayment or the costs of
collecting on defaulted loans, even if
those loans are not expected to lead to
large amounts of revenue in the future.
Other borrowers may benefit from
reduced loan payments. Borrowers on
payment plans other than IDR would
see their monthly payments decrease if
the Department waives any capitalized
interest. Borrowers on non-IDR plans
may also see their time to repayment
reduced, as the total amount of
payments needed to retire their debt
decreases. The extent of these effects on
borrowers repaying under an IDR plan
are more challenging to assess, as they
would be affected by whether borrowers
are close to reaching certain caps on
payments that exist in plans such as IBR
and PAYE. In such situations, it could
result in either a reduced payment,
repaying the loan before reaching
forgiveness, or both.
Beyond transfers, the Department
estimates that there would be
administrative costs for the
implementation of this benefit. These
85 https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-andanalysis/reports/2020/05/borrowers-discuss-thechallenges-of-student-loan-repayment; https://
www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/indefault-and-left-behind/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
costs are discussed at the very end of
this subsection of the RIA.
§ 30.83 Waiver based on time since a
loan first entered repayment.
The proposal to permit the Secretary
to waive loans that first entered
repayment 20 or 25 years ago, if
exercised, would create costs in the
form of transfers between the Federal
Government and borrowers. Borrowers
would receive significant benefits from
no longer having to repay old loans, and
the Federal Government would also see
benefits from no longer servicing or
collecting on loans that are largely not
expected to be repaid in full. Finally,
this proposal would have administrative
costs for the Department to implement.
Each is discussed in more detail below,
except for the administrative costs,
which are discussed at the end of this
subsection of the RIA.
The size of the transfers between the
Federal Government and borrowers
would depend on the borrower’s
repayment history and the likelihood
that an older loan would otherwise have
been repaid. Under the default
repayment plan created by Congress (the
standard repayment plan), borrowers
repay their loans over 120 equal
installments—the equivalent of 10 years
of monthly payments. From 1965–2010,
most student loan borrowers made fixed
monthly payments over a set period of
time. Starting in 1994, borrowers with
Direct Loans had an option to make
payments based upon their income
through the ICR plan. It provides
forgiveness after 25 years of monthly
payment but was not used extensively.
In 2007, Congress created the IBR plan,
which gave all Direct and FFEL student
borrowers access to a more generous
repayment plan tied to borrowers’
income. Legislation in 2010 followed by
regulations in 2012 and 2015 further
improved the terms of IDR plans and
expanded the options for Direct Loan
borrowers. From 2010 to 2018 the share
of undergraduate borrowers in IDR
plans grew from 11 percent to 24
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
percent.86 Currently, about one-third of
federally managed loan recipients are in
IDR plans.87
With one exception, all other Federal
loan repayment options result in the
debt being repaid or forgiven after no
more than 25 years. For instance, all IDR
plans provide forgiveness after 20 or 25
years. The one exception is for higherbalance consolidation loans—typically
those with starting balances of at least
$60,000—which can be repaid over 30
years.88 The idea then, is that most
student loans will be repaid over
roughly a decade, with nearly all others
being paid off within 25 years at the
latest.
The size of transfers that would be
generated by this policy depends on
how many loans that would be eligible
for waiver under this policy are set to
be repaid or, alternatively, are likely to
simply linger and eventually be forgiven
through discharges due to a borrower’s
death or total and permanent disability.
For instance, based on analysis of
Department data, in 2022, there were
more than 1 million borrowers with
loans that have been in default for at
least 20 years. During this period these
borrowers could have been subject to
negative credit reporting, wage
garnishment, tax refund offset, and even
litigation. If these loans are still
outstanding after all this time
notwithstanding the availability of those
powerful collection tools, the odds that
they would be fully repaid in a
reasonable period are unlikely. For
instance, among borrowers who started
college in 2004 and ever defaulted on a
86 Congressional Budget Office (2020). IncomeDriven Repayment Plans for Student Loans:
Budgetary Costs and Policy Options. https://
www.cbo.gov/publication/56277.
87 Based on Q4 2023 data on Direct Loans and EDheld FFEL borrowers in Repayment, Deferment, and
Forbearance from the FSA Data Center, Portfolio by
Repayment Plan, available at: https://
studentaid.gov/data-center/student/portfolio.
88 Eligibility for a 30-year repayment plan on a
consolidation loan is based upon total education
loan indebtedness, which can include non-Federal
debts.
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
27596
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Federal loan, only about one-third paid
off that loan in full within 12 years.89
Even loans not in default may not be
fully repaid in a reasonable period. For
instance, a borrower may have spent
extended periods in forbearance because
they could not afford their payments.
While doing so will allow them to avoid
default, it will put them further away
from successful repayment due to the
accumulation of interest.
Older loans are also going to be held
by older borrowers. The older the
borrower, the greater the likelihood that
they will stop working prior to
successful repayment. Forty-one percent
of non-Parent PLUS borrowers 62 years
of age and older with an open loan have
held their student loans for more than
20 years, and 30 percent of borrowers 62
years of age and older with an open loan
have held their student loans for more
than 25 years.90 Waiving such loans
would not create significant costs in the
form of transfers for the Government
because it is unlikely to get significant
additional payments from a retired
borrower.
The costs of these transfers would be
greater for loans where the Government
was expecting to see significant
repayments. Some of these situations
are impossible to anticipate at any given
scale, such as borrowers who suddenly
come into money from an inheritance or
divorce settlement and are either able to
repay their loans voluntarily or see a
large increase in amounts obtained from
enforced collections. Another situation
would relate to borrowers who are on a
30-year repayment plan. For student
borrowers, the Government would be
forgoing the final five years of
payments, while for a borrower with a
consolidation loan that repaid a Parent
PLUS loan and did not have any
graduate loans, it would be forgoing 10
years of payments. The Department
projects that it would be five years of
foregone payments instead of 10 for
student borrowers because in order to
qualify for a plan with a 30-year
amortization period, the borrower must
have a level of debt above what a
borrower can take out in principal for
their own undergraduate education.
These would be borrowers who would
be eligible to receive a waiver 25 years
after entering repayment. Parent
borrowers, meanwhile, would be
eligible to receive a waiver 20 years after
entering repayment, assuming they had
no graduate debt of their own.
Table 3.6 provides estimates of the
number of borrowers who would be
eligible to receive benefits under this
provision and their characteristics.
About 2.6 million borrowers are
expected to be eligible for relief because
they first entered repayment on or
before either July 1, 2000, or July 1,
2005, depending on whether they have
loans for graduate study. Forgiveness of
debt among borrowers who entered
repayment 20 or 25 years ago
particularly helps older borrowers, with
over 60 percent aged over 50.
Additionally, over 80 percent of
borrowers had previously had a default.
TABLE 3.6—ESTIMATED NUMBER AND CHARACTERISTICS OF BORROWERS WHO WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR WAIVERS
UNDER § 30.83
Borrowers at
20/25 years of
forgiveness
Number of Borrowers Receiving Any Forgiveness Under this Provision ...........................................................................................
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans .....................................................................................................................................................
Ever Received a Pell Grant * ........................................................................................................................................................
Ever Had a Default .......................................................................................................................................................................
Age <30 ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Age 30–50 ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Age 50+ ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad ....................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad ................................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School ....................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20–25 Years .....................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment 25–30 Years .....................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment 30+ Years ........................................................................................................................................
2.6 M
10%
36%
83%
0%
37%
63%
49%
30%
14%
41%
30%
29%
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Notes: Results from a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio. All numbers are rounded. Forgiveness in 2024 is based on having at
least one non-commercial FFEL loan enter repayment 20 years ago (if no graduate debt) or 25 years ago (any graduate debt).
* Pell Grant status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered repayment on their last loan before 1999. As such, these figures may understate the share of borrowers who are Pell Grant recipients.
Waiving old loans would significantly
benefit borrowers. For older borrowers,
ending required loan payments would
reduce one source of financial
obligations for their final years in the
workforce, putting them in better shape
for retirement and reducing their need
to rely on other sources of funds in their
final years. It also could give some
borrowers who currently have to work
to repay their loans the ability to retire.
Of the borrowers with loans 20 or 25
years old, 63 percent are over 50 years
old.
The Government would also see
benefits from waiving older loans.
Continuing to pay the cost of collecting
or servicing older debts that are unlikely
to be repaid generates costs for
taxpayers that may never be recouped.
If a borrower defaults on their debt, a
portion of their Social Security benefit
may be offset to repay the student loan;
for some borrowers, this reduction
moves their benefits income below the
Federal poverty line.91
§ 30.84 Waiver when a loan is
eligible for forgiveness based upon
repayment plan.
This provision would provide the
Secretary with discretionary waiver
authority that could create costs in the
89 Based on Beginning Postsecondary Students
Longitudinal Surveys 2004/2009. https://
nces.ed.gov/datalab/powerstats/table/loivbe.
90 https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/
hearulemaking/2023/data-on-older-borrowers-andparents-session-2.pdf.
91 SOCIAL SECURITY OFFSETS: Improvements
to Program Design Could Better Assist Older
Student Loan Borrowers with Obtaining Permitted
Relief. United States Government Accountability
Office. December 2016. https://www.gao.gov/assets/
gao-17-45.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
form of transfers from the Federal
Government to student loan borrowers.
These waivers would apply in situations
where borrowers would be eligible to
receive relief if they otherwise meet the
eligibility requirements for forgiveness
under existing repayment plans, but
they have not applied. Waiver is
appropriate because borrowers often
struggle to navigate the myriad loan
repayment plans available to them. As
a result, the Department frequently
observes that borrowers who could
receive immediate forgiveness are
unaware of, or are unable to take, the
steps needed to receive relief. The cost
of the transfers that would occur from
providing relief under this section
therefore represent the expense
associated with providing relief to
borrowers who could not or did not
know how to opt into already existing
benefits.
This provision is separate and distinct
from § 30.85. This section only applies
to borrowers who would be eligible for
a discharge based upon one of the
repayment plans that result in
forgiveness after a set period. This
includes all IDR plans, as well as the
alternative repayment plan. By contrast,
§ 30.85 is focused on possible relief for
borrowers who otherwise qualify for
forgiveness opportunities. There is no
guarantee that a borrower eligible for a
waiver under § 30.84 would be eligible
for one under § 30.85 or vice versa.
Providing waivers for borrowers who
are eligible for relief but who have not
successfully applied for certain
repayment plans provides significant
benefits for borrowers and the
Department. For borrowers, they would
receive the benefit of no longer needing
to repay their student loan. This
removes the risk of delinquency and
default and also means that they no
longer need to devote a portion of their
income to the student loans being
forgiven. They also derive benefits by
receiving relief automatically and not
needing to spend the time to navigate
the repayment system. The Department,
meanwhile, benefits by no longer paying
27597
for the cost of servicing a loan that is
otherwise eligible for a discharge.
Continuing to cover such costs is an
unnecessary expenditure of Federal
funds. It can also create added costs and
work for the Department if the borrower
applies later and is then eligible for
refunds of payments that they made
after the point when they were eligible
for forgiveness. The Department also
benefits by providing relief
automatically instead of needing to pay
to process individual borrower
applications.
Table 3.7 reports estimates of the
number of borrowers who would be
eligible for forgiveness under the SAVE
plan, but who are not currently enrolled
in that plan. We estimate that about 1.7
million borrowers will receive partial or
complete forgiveness (with over half
receiving full forgiveness) as of
December 31, 2023. Nearly 70 percent of
these borrowers received a Pell Grant
and over one-third had a prior default.
TABLE 3.7—ESTIMATED CHARACTERISTICS OF BORROWERS WHO WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR WAIVERS UNDER § 30.84
Number of borrowers receiving any forgiveness .................................................................................................................................
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans .....................................................................................................................................................
Ever Received a Pell Grant * ........................................................................................................................................................
Ever Had a Default .......................................................................................................................................................................
Age <30 ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Age 30–50 ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Age 50+ ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad ....................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad ................................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School ....................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years ........................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10–20 Years .....................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years ........................................................................................................................................
1.7 M
5%
66%
45%
0%
72%
27%
65%
26%
7%
0%
75%
24%
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Notes: Results are from analysis of a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio. All numbers are rounded. Borrowers whose original
loan disbursement was less than $12,000 and who have made 120 payments were classified as eligible, as were borrowers who had an additional 12 payments for each $1,000 borrowed above that amount. Eligibility ends at 19 years of payments on $21,000 or original principal balance for borrowers who only have undergraduate loans or 24 years for borrowers who originally took out $24,000 and have any graduate loans.
Borrowers above that point would receive the typical forgiveness on SAVE at 20 or 25 years. Parent PLUS loans and FFEL loans were excluded
from this analysis, but borrowers with these types of loans may still be eligible for forgiveness on other Federal loans they hold.
* Pell Grant status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered repayment on their last loan before 1999. As such, these figures may understate the share of borrowers who are Pell Grant recipients.
Waivers under this provision would
generate two types of costs. One is costs
in the form of transfers from the
Department to the borrower. However,
as discussed, these would be transfers
borrowers could already receive if they
were to take the necessary steps to apply
for the specific repayment plan. While
these do show up as costs in this
proposed rule, we believe the benefits of
providing this relief automatically and
the savings generated from such an
approach are better than incurring the
costs to provide this relief on an
individual basis.
Action under these provisions would
come with costs for the Department in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
the form of administrative expenses to
implement this change. These costs are
discussed at the end of this subsection
of the RIA.
§ 30.85 When a loan is eligible for a
targeted forgiveness opportunity.
This provision provides the Secretary
with discretionary waiver authority that,
if exercised, would create costs in the
form of transfers between the
Department and borrowers who see
some or all of their outstanding loan
balances waived. It would also provide
benefits to borrowers by granting them
relief for which they would otherwise
have to apply. This automatic relief
would also provide benefits to the
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Department because it would no longer
need to pay to service loans that could
otherwise be forgiven and could apply
relief automatically instead of on an
individual basis. This provision would
also create some administrative costs for
the Department to implement this
provision. Administrative costs are
discussed in a separate section at the
end of this subsection of the RIA.
For borrowers, the benefits would be
most felt by the individuals who are
least likely to apply for relief, because
we anticipate that borrowers who are
aware of the targeted forgiveness
opportunities will successfully apply for
them. The Department anticipates that
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
27598
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
the benefits of this provision will be
most felt by borrowers who are at the
greatest risk of default and delinquency
because those are the borrowers who are
the least engaged with the student loan
system. Comparisons of borrowers who
successfully applied for relief versus
those who received it through automatic
action highlight the extent to which
more at-risk borrowers get left behind by
a process that requires borrowers to
apply. For instance, past studies of
closed school loan discharges by GAO
found that the borrowers who did not
apply for this relief and instead received
an automatic discharge were far more
likely to be in default than those who
successfully applied.92
Table 3.8 reports estimates of the
number of and characteristics of
borrowers who would be eligible for a
waiver under § 30.85. To estimate the
potential effect of § 30.85 we looked at
borrowers who are eligible but have not
applied for a closed school loan
discharge. This is the forgiveness
opportunity where the Department has
information in its systems necessary to
determine eligibility and provides a
strong source for estimating the number
of potential waivers that the Secretary
may grant under this provision. The
Secretary may grant waivers based on
eligibility for other forgiveness
programs, but such waivers would
depend on the Department obtaining
additional information, such as factspecific indicators of misconduct of
colleges or data matches with States or
other Federal entities to determine
eligibility for PSLF.
TABLE 3.8—ESTIMATED NUMBER AND CHARACTERISTICS OF BORROWERS WHO WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR WAIVERS
UNDER § 30.85
Number of Borrowers Receiving Any Forgiveness Under this Provision ...........................................................................................
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans .....................................................................................................................................................
Ever Received a Pell grant * ........................................................................................................................................................
Ever Had a Default .......................................................................................................................................................................
Age <30 ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Age 30–50 ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Age 50+ ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad ....................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad ................................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School ....................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years ........................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10–20 Years .....................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years ........................................................................................................................................
0.26 M
6%
73%
39%
25%
48%
27%
66%
21%
9%
57%
24%
13%
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Notes: Results are from analysis of a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio. All numbers are rounded. Borrower is counted if their
loan maturity date was within one year after the school’s closure date or their loan’s disbursement was within one year before the closure date.
Borrower’s loans are included if they are Direct or federally-managed FFEL loans.
* Pell Grant status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered repayment on their last loan before 1999. As such, these figures may understate the share of borrowers who are Pell Grant recipients.
The Department would also benefit
from providing discharges under
§ 30.85, which would stop the
Department from paying for the costs of
servicing or collecting loans that are
otherwise eligible to be forgiven. In
addition, some targeted forgiveness
opportunities, such as closed school
discharges, include provisions that
refund payments for borrowers.
Processing refunds is costly and timeconsuming for the Department, so
providing relief sooner and reducing the
number of future unnecessary payments
that must be refunded is also more
efficient for the Department. Finally, the
Department would benefit from
providing automatic relief instead of
processing individual applications
because the more streamlined process
reduces administrative burden and
costs.
Waivers granted under this section
would create some costs. The
Department believes the costs associated
with the discharges themselves are
outweighed by the benefits because this
is relief that a borrower would
otherwise receive anyway if they
submitted the right paperwork at the
right time. To that end, the cost is
essentially capturing revenue the
Department receives because borrowers
are either unaware of certain discharge
programs or do not successfully apply.
§ 30.86 Waiver based upon
Secretarial actions.
This section provides the Secretary
with discretionary waiver authority that,
if exercised, would create costs in the
form of transfers between the
Department and borrowers by providing
loan discharges. It would not create any
transfers between institutions of higher
education and the Department. Relief
provided to borrowers under this
section would be done as a waiver,
which means there would be no liability
to seek against an institution.
The waivers granted under this
section would provide significant
benefits to borrowers. Through this
provision, borrowers would no longer
have to repay loans they took out to
attend programs or institutions that
have lost access to Federal student
financial aid based on Secretarial
actions that determined their program or
institution failed to provide sufficient
financial value or failed a student
outcomes accountability measure,
provided that the borrowers attended
the program during the corresponding
time period. For instance, the
Department would waive outstanding
loans taken out by borrowers who were
part of cohorts whose data showed their
institution or program did not meet
required title IV accountability
standards because of unacceptably high
rates of student loan default, had poor
levels of debt compared to the earnings
of graduates, or failed to provide
graduates a financial return equal to or
greater than the earnings of a high
school graduate who never pursued
postsecondary education. These are
loans where at least some significant
share of the borrowers are exhibiting
either direct signs of struggle or
experiencing circumstances, such as
excessive debt burdens, that suggest that
there is a strong likelihood of inability
to repay.
The other waivers that may be
provided under this section would
similarly benefit borrowers. The
92 https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-105373.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Department has seen in the past that
borrowers who take out loans to attend
programs or institutions that engaged in
substantial misrepresentations such as
lying about crucial issues like expected
earnings or job placement rates of
graduates or similar indicia often also
had high rates of delinquency and
default.
These waivers would significantly
benefit borrowers by no longer making
them repay loans where there is either
existing evidence of high rates of default
or factors that strongly correlate with
challenges in repayment. These waivers
would particularly benefit borrowers
who are in default, as they would no
longer face negative credit reporting,
wage garnishment, the seizure of tax
refunds, or other forms of enforced
collections. Removing these loans from
their consumer reports would also likely
improve their credit scores since more
than 80 percent of these borrowers have
had a default, which could have
downstream benefits in terms of
securing other forms of credit other than
Federal student loans, as well as in
other contexts like tenant or
employment screening. If this waiver
results in the waiver of all of a
borrower’s defaulted Federal student
loans, the borrower may also be able to
obtain new loans or Federal grant aid to
attend a program or institution that
would provide them with better value.
The Department would also benefit
from this provision. It would no longer
need to pay for the costs of servicing or
collecting on loans where borrowers
have already demonstrated they are part
of cohorts that had high rates of default
or are burdened by excessive debt
compared to their earnings or have
extremely low earnings. The
Department is unlikely to fully collect
such loans or to do so in a reasonable
period. The costs of providing such
27599
discharges may not be as significant as
the Department may not be likely to
receive significant repayments or
collection from these loans. For these
reasons, we believe that the costs of
these discharges would be outweighed
by the benefits.
Table 3.9 below shows the estimated
number of borrowers who would be
eligible for relief because they attended
institutions that failed the cohort default
rate metrics between 1992–2020 and
subsequently lost eligibility to disburse
Federal financial aid.93 In total, we
estimate that less than 0.01 million
borrowers who attended schools that
failed CDR metrics and then
subsequently lost eligibility to disburse
title IV aid would be eligible for waivers
under this provision. About 30 percent
of the borrowers who would experience
relief under this provision received a
Pell Grant.
TABLE 3.9—ESTIMATED NUMBER AND CHARACTERISTICS OF BORROWERS WHO WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR WAIVERS
UNDER § 30.86
Number of Borrowers Receiving Any Forgiveness Under this Provision: ..........................................................................................
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans .....................................................................................................................................................
Ever Received a Pell Grant ..........................................................................................................................................................
Ever Had a Default .......................................................................................................................................................................
Age <30 ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Age 30–50 ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Age 50+ ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad ....................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad ................................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School ....................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years ........................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10–20 Years .....................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years ........................................................................................................................................
0.01 M
6%
31%
83%
2%
29%
69%
83%
10%
2%
9%
21%
70%
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Notes: Results from a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio. All numbers are rounded. Forgiveness in 2024 is based on having at
least one loan with a positive outstanding balance from an institution that failed the CDR metrics since 1998 and was closed or not providing title
IV aid to students as of 2002, having a loan from an institution that lost eligibility for Title IV between 1999 and 2014 due to CDR sanctions, or
having a loan from an institution that failed the CDR metrics from 2015–2020 and was closed or not providing Title IV aid to students as of 2022.
Borrower’s loans are included if they are Direct or federally-managed FFEL loans.
* Pell status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered repayment on their last loan before 1999.
The above estimates in Table 3.9 also
do not include borrowers who would be
eligible to receive relief because they
attend a program that fails GE metrics
and loses access to Federal aid. Under
the GE accountability framework from
the 2023 GE Rule, all certificate and
diploma programs at public and private
nonprofit institutions and educational
programs at for-profit institutions of
higher education with a sufficient
number of completers will be assessed
annually on whether they meet debt-toearnings and earnings premium
standards. Under those regulations, the
Department will hold career training
programs accountable for keeping debt
affordable and producing economic
mobility by revoking eligibility for
Federal student aid programs if
programs fail metrics in two of three
consecutive years.94 Such actions will
protect future students against
unaffordable loan burdens; however, the
borrowers whose experiences were
captured in the failing debt-to-earnings
or earnings premium standards also
merit relief. For example, the first two
official GE metrics will be published in
2025 and 2026, based on the
experiences of students who attended
years earlier.95 If a program fails the
same metric in both years, students will
93 For schools that had high CDR metrics prior to
1999 or from 2015 to 2020, we do not have an exact
accounting of which of schools were able to
successfully appeal their potential sanctions.
Therefore, we approximate which schools lost
eligibility to disburse Title IV aid by comparing the
list to data on Title IV eligibility from the Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), as of
2002 (for 1992–1998) and 2022 (2015–2020).
94 There are two key metrics under the GE
regulations, a debt-to-earnings (D/E) rate and an
earnings premium (EP) test. Programs that fail
either metric in a single year will be required to
provide warnings to current and prospective
students. Programs that fail the same metric in two
of three consecutive years will not be eligible to
participate in Federal student aid programs. See
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/
hearulemaking/2021/gainful-employment-notice-offinal-review-factsheet.pdf.
95 Depending on the number of students who
completed the program, the cohort period will
either be two years or four years. For example, for
D/E and EP measure calculations during the 2023–
24 award year, the two-year cohort period will be
award years 2017–18 and 2018–19 and the four-year
cohort period will be award years 2015–16, 2016–
17, 2017–18, and 2018–19.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
27600
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
no longer be able to borrow Federal
loans or receive Pell Grants to attend
that program, but students who attended
during the years on which the failing
metrics are based would be eligible for
relief on their Federal loans under these
proposed regulations.
The RIA that accompanied the 2023
GE final regulations estimated that
approximately 700,000 students
annually are in programs that could fail
the standards in the GE rule. After the
GE accountability framework goes into
effect in 2024, and after programs may
start to become ineligible to participate
in the title IV, HEA aid programs in
2026, the GE RIA estimates that the
number of students in failing programs
will gradually decline, reducing the
number of students eligible for relief
under this provision in the future.
This RIA does not include a separate
analysis of the potential effect on
borrowers from § 30.86(a)(2). The
Department anticipates that waivers that
could be granted in these situations
would occur on a case-by-case basis. For
past cohorts, the number of institutions
that lost access to aid under these
provisions is generally small. And some
of those institutions, such as Marinello
Schools of Beauty, have since been
covered by actions to discharge groups
of loans based upon borrower defense to
repayment findings. For future
borrowers, the Department cannot
predict administrative actions that have
yet to occur, so it is not possible to
assign a likely cost to future loan
cohorts.
Finally, this provision would create
small administrative costs for the
Department to implement.
Administrative costs are discussed
separately at the end of this subsection
of the RIA.
§ 30.87 Waiver following a closure
prior to Secretarial actions.
The waivers granted under this
section would have transfers, benefits,
and costs that are similar to those under
§ 30.86. However, these elements would
affect a distinct group of borrowers who
would not be eligible for a waiver under
§ 30.86 and would only have some
overlap with borrowers eligible under
§ 30.88. These borrowers are in a
different situation than borrowers
eligible for relief under § 30.86 because
they borrowed to attend an institution
or program that failed to meet certain
outcomes standards or was in the
middle of a Secretarial action related to
not providing sufficient financial value,
but the institution or program closed
before the Department completed the
action to remove aid eligibility. Similar
to § 30.86, this provision would not
create any transfers between institutions
and the Department because amounts
that are waived could not be recouped
from the school.
Borrowers would benefit from this
provision because they would no longer
have to repay loans taken out to attend
programs or institutions that had been
exhibiting evidence of excessively poor
student loan outcomes or otherwise
failing to provide sufficient financial
value. Loans taken out in these
situations are likely to result in higher
rates of delinquency and default,
meaning that the waivers under this
section would provide added benefits
such as protecting borrowers from
negative credit reporting, the possibility
of wage garnishment, tax refund or
Social Security benefit seizure, and
other forms of enforced collections.
The Department would also benefit
from waivers granted under this section.
As discussed, these loans are owed by
borrowers who are more likely to
struggle to repay their debts and the
Department may need to incur greater
costs to provide the borrowers with
more targeted outreach and more help to
navigate repayment. If these loans are
older, it is also less likely that the
Department would be collecting
significant sums from the borrowers,
reducing the likelihood that the loans
will be fully repaid.
As noted above, the costs of this
provision would largely come from the
transfers granted to borrowers when a
loan is discharged. We are not including
specific modeling of these transfers
because we believe the potential effect
of this section would be much smaller
than what is captured in § 30.86. We
believe the largest effect is likely to be
related to borrowers who attended
institutions that preemptively closed
96 These data are available https://studentaid.gov/
sites/default/files/GE-DMYR-2015-Final-Rates.xls.
97 The Department released a data file called the
2022 Program Performance Data (‘‘2022 PPD’’) along
with the proposed rule titled ‘‘Financial Value
Transparency and Gainful Employment (GE),
Financial Responsibility, Administrative Capability,
Certification Procedures, Ability to Benefit (ATB)’’
available at: https://www.regulations.gov/
document/ED-2023-OPE-0089-0086. These data
include program performance information, using
measures based on the typical debt levels and postenrollment earnings of program completers.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
when cohort default rates were first
created, as we have seen few to no
schools close in recent years due to
impending loss of Federal aid from high
default rates. While there are closures
that occur before other Secretarial
actions are finalized, this occurs more
on a case-by-case basis and typically
does not occur in large numbers. This
provision provides critical benefits to
the borrowers who would be eligible for
relief, but we do not think it operates on
a large enough scale to model.
For example, borrowers who attended
programs that failed the previously
published GE rates released in 2017,
based on the 2015 debt measure year,
would be eligible for a waiver under this
provision. However, current data
limitations related to program
information in NSLDS for the cohorts
included in those 2017 rates prevent us
from estimating the number of
borrowers who would be eligible for
waivers under this provision.96
Finally, this provision would create
administrative costs to implement.
Administrative costs are discussed
separately at the end of this subsection
of the RIA.
§ 30.88 Waiver for closed Gainful
Employment (GE) programs with high
debt-to-earnings rates or low median
earnings.
Waivers granted under this section
would provide transfers, benefits, and
costs that are similar to a portion of
those that could occur under § 30.87.
However, these benefits would affect a
distinct group including those that are
not otherwise captured under any other
provision. The reasons for waivers
under this section are also narrower
than those in §§ 30.86 and 30.87.
Table 3.10 below shows the estimated
number of borrowers who would be
eligible for waivers because they
attended a program that failed the GE
metric for any reason based on the data
from the 2015, 2016, and 2017 Award
Years released in 2023 along with the
GE Rule Regulatory Impact Analysis and
also did not have any students who
received Title IV aid from 2018
onwards.97
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
27601
TABLE 3.10—ESTIMATED NUMBER AND CHARACTERISTICS OF BORROWERS WHO WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR WAIVERS
UNDER § 30.88
Number of Borrowers Receiving Any Forgiveness Under this Provision: ..........................................................................................
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans .....................................................................................................................................................
Ever Received a Pell Grant ..........................................................................................................................................................
Ever Had a Default .......................................................................................................................................................................
Age <30 ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Age 30–50 ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Age 50+ ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad ....................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad ................................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School ....................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years ........................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10–20 Years .....................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years ........................................................................................................................................
0.01 M
6%
78%
33%
15%
70%
15%
60%
13%
27%
86%
14%
0%
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Notes: Results from a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio. All numbers are rounded. Borrower’s loans are included if they are Direct or federally-managed FFEL loans.
* Pell Grant status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered repayment on their last loan before 1999. As such, these figures may understate the share of borrowers who are Pell Grant recipients.
The number of students who attended
such programs is likely higher than this
estimate, but data limitations prevent us
from including in this estimate
borrowers who attended programs that
failed the 2011 Gainful Employment
Informational Metrics.98
The waivers under this provision
would create costs in the form of
transfers. Such transfers would go to
borrowers who have loans used to enroll
in programs that produced results that
according to data from the Department
show that they had high debt-toearnings or low earnings premium
measures that did not meet basic
standards of financial value, but the
program closed prior to the issuance of
formal GE rates under the new GE rule.
While these programs did not have the
formal failures that would qualify for a
discharge under §§ 30.86 or 30.87, the
outcomes are so poor that, when paired
with closure, the Department’s concerns
about borrowers’ ability to repay loans
from these programs are similar.
The Department would also benefit by
waiving these loans. As discussed, these
loans are from borrowers who attended
programs with data showing that
graduates take on more debt than is
reasonable or whose earnings are worse
than what a high school graduate earns.
Borrowers in such situations are more
likely to struggle to repay their debts
and may incur greater costs for the
Department in the form of more targeted
outreach and more help to navigate
repayment. If these loans are older, it is
also less likely that the Department may
be collecting significant sums from
them, reducing the likelihood they will
98 These data are available at https://
studentaid.gov/data-center/school/ge/data.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
be repaid. Beyond costs in the form of
transfers, implementing this provision
will come with small administrative
costs for the Department.
Administrative costs are discussed
separately at the end of this subsection
of the RIA.
Part 682—Federal Family Education
Loan (FFEL) Program
Subpart D—Administration of the
Federal Family Education Loan
Programs by a Guaranty Agency
§ 682.403 Waiver of FFEL Program
Loan Debt.
The costs, benefits, and transfers
under proposed § 682.403 would differ
slightly depending on whether the loan
is currently in repayment or in default
at a guaranty agency. For loans in
repayment, proposed § 682.403 would
result in transfers between the guaranty
agency using Federal funds to pay the
FFEL loan holder and then assigning
that loan to the Department for eventual
waiver. The size of this transfer would
be equal to the full outstanding balance
of the loan owed to private loan holders,
plus unpaid interest and fees, as
applicable. Such a transfer would not
occur for loans in default at a guaranty
agency. For these loans, the former
private loan holder had already been
paid a default claim payment by the
guaranty agency using Federal funds.
The costs from a transfer would be more
directly from the Department to the
borrower, as the guaranty agency would
assign the loan to the Department,
which would then waive the remaining
balance.
These waivers would provide
significant benefits to borrowers, who
would be relieved of their obligation to
make further payments on their loans.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
For § 682.403(b)(1) the benefits are
similar to those provided in § 30.83 for
borrowers whose loans are managed by
the Department and are at least 25 years
old. Such waivers would benefit
borrowers who have been unable to
fully repay their loans over a reasonable
period of time. Such borrowers tend to
be older and many of these borrowers
have spent time in default. Waiving
such loans provides relief to borrowers
who have shown persistent challenges
with repayment and, in the case of older
borrowers, would likely improve their
financial stability in their final years.
The benefits of § 682.403(b)(2) are
similar to some of those of § 30.85,
which provides a waiver for borrowers
eligible for a targeted forgiveness
opportunity. In this case, only
borrowers who would otherwise be
eligible for a closed school loan
discharge but have not applied would
be covered. These borrowers would
receive a discharge were they to apply.
However, as research from GAO has
shown, many borrowers eligible for
closed school loan discharges in the
past have not successfully applied for
this relief, and many of these borrowers
end up in default.99 This provision
would benefit such borrowers by
granting them relief and ensuring they
do not unnecessarily experience default.
The benefits of § 682.403(b)(3),
meanwhile, are similar to the benefits
that would be available under § 30.86
for borrowers who attend institutions
that become ineligible for Federal aid
because of high cohort default rates.
These waivers would apply to
borrowers who are part of cohorts that
produced the high rates of default
99 https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-105373.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
27602
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
resulting in title IV ineligibility,
meaning many such borrowers are likely
either currently in default or have spent
time in default in the past. These
waivers would significantly benefit
borrowers by no longer making them
repay loans where there is existing
evidence of borrowers struggling to
repay their loans at high rates that
exceed the Department’s accountability
standards. Table 3.11 below shows the
number and characteristics of borrowers
who would be eligible for waivers under
§ 682.403. Of note is the fact that 45
percent of these borrowers ever
experienced a default, and we estimate
about 30 percent are currently in
default.
TABLE 3.11—ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER AND CHARACTERISTICS OF BORROWERS WHO WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR
WAIVERS UNDER § 682.403
Number of Borrowers Receiving Any Forgiveness Under this Provision ...........................................................................................
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans .....................................................................................................................................................
Ever Received a Pell grant * ........................................................................................................................................................
Ever Had a Default .......................................................................................................................................................................
Age <30 ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Age 30–50 ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Age 50+ ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad ....................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad ................................................................................................................................
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School ....................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years ........................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10–20 Years .....................................................................................................................................
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years ........................................................................................................................................
0.9 M
14%
19%
45%
0%
27%
73%
24%
34%
36%
0%
0%
99%
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Notes: Results from a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio. All numbers are rounded. Forgiveness is for borrowers with any commercial FFEL loans that entered repayment on July 1, 2000 or earlier, borrowers with at least one commercial FFEL loan with a positive outstanding balance to attend an institution that failed CDR metrics between 1992 and 1998 or 2015 to 2020, and was closed or not providing title
IV aid to students as of 2002 or 2022 respectively, or having a loan to attend an institution that lost eligibility for title IV between 1999 and 2014
due to CDR sanctions, or from a school that closed just after, or during, the student’s enrollment.
* Pell status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered repayment on their last loan before 1999.
The Department would benefit from
the provisions in § 682.403, as well.
Some of these loans have already been
in default in the past and may not be
repaid. In those cases, taxpayers have
already compensated the lender for the
default and the debt may not be
collected. In addition, and as noted
earlier, these provisions are similar to
several of the waiver provisions for
Department-held loans. The Department
benefits from treating borrowers with
commercially held FFEL loans in a
similar manner as borrowers with EDheld loans because it streamlines
providing relief to borrowers who could
consolidate into the Direct Loan
program and it reduces the
Department’s need to respond to
borrower confusion.
The waivers may also provide some
benefits for holders of FFEL loans by
fully paying off loans that are either
unlikely to ever be repaid or that may
not be repaid in a reasonable period. In
the years before the FFEL program
stopped issuing new loans, many
lenders chose to securitize their
outstanding loans by issuing assetbacked securities. This approach creates
long-term bond obligations that must be
repaid using the payments made by
borrowers and any subsidies received
from the Department. However, the
growth in the number of borrowers
using the IBR plan to repay these
privately held FFEL loans may be
resulting in fewer incoming payments
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
than expected. In 2020, the Wall Street
Journal reported how some student loan
asset-backed securities were extending
the anticipated pay off date of the bond
by decades, including as much as 54
years to avoid potential write-downs by
credit rating agencies.100 Compensating
a lender for outstanding amounts of
loans that are not on track to be repaid
even after 20 or 25 years since entering
repayment may provide a benefit to
lenders and bond holders that are
otherwise struggling to receive sufficient
repayments.
The bulk of the costs from this
provision would accrue to the
Department by paying guaranty agencies
to compensate loan holders for the
outstanding value of loans that the
Secretary chooses to waive. The
Department believes these costs are
justified because the benefits to the
Department and the borrower to address
loans that are unlikely to be fully repaid
are significant. In some cases, such as
loans owed by borrowers who attended
closed schools, these are also debts that
could be forgiven otherwise as soon as
the borrower submits certain
paperwork.
We anticipate administrative
expenses associated with the provisions
in proposed § 682.403. We think these
costs would be reasonable because the
provisions in this section largely mirror
100 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-borrower-willbe-114-when-bonds-backed-by-her-student-loansmature-11578393002.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
existing regulations for processing
certain discharges in the FFEL program,
which have been used for some time. To
that end, loan servicers and guaranty
agencies would not need to stand up a
whole new process. That means any
costs would likely relate to producing
the necessary paperwork for a lender to
submit a claim to the guaranty agency
and for the guaranty agency to process
that claim and assign the loan to the
Department. The Department would
also incur administrative costs to
receive and then waive an assigned
loan, which are discussed in the
separate section on administrative costs
at the end of this subsection of the RIA.
But this assignment and waiver process
would also leverage existing channels.
Finally, it is possible that some lenders
could face costs from no longer
receiving the quarterly special
allowance payments (SAP) that are
payable to FFEL loan holders on certain
loans. These amounts vary based upon
when a loan was disbursed and other
factors.101 The extent to which forgoing
future SAP payments on a loan
represents a cost will depend
significantly on whether the loan was
otherwise being repaid as expected or
not. For example, a loan holder that was
receiving lower than anticipated
payments due to a borrower being on
IBR may be financially better off to have
the loan paid off and forgo the SAP
101 https://fsapartners.ed.gov/sites/default/files/
2023-01/SAPMemoQ42022.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
payment. A loan that is otherwise being
paid down might see some costs due to
forgoing SAP. But this would also
require factoring in the value of
receiving payments today instead of
hypothetical future ones.
Administrative Costs
These proposed rules would create
administrative costs for the Department
if the Secretary were to exercise his
discretion to provide waivers under any
of these sections. These costs are
reported as a separate section because
they generally represent a set of baseline
expenses that the Department would
incur. The marginal costs of
implementing one change but not
another would vary depending on the
proposed regulatory section in question.
For instance, the marginal cost of
implementing § 30.82 on top of § 30.81
is smaller than it would be if the
Department were to implement § 30.82
on top of § 30.83. Accordingly, we are
presenting an overall estimate, the cost
of which would be lower for solely the
provisions related to §§ 30.83 through
30.85. The Department does include a
separate discussion for § 682.403, which
is a different process that would involve
granting a waiver after taking
assignment of a loan. We estimate these
cumulative costs would be largely split
across the 2024 and 2025 fiscal years.
Overall, the Department estimates that
the waivers in §§ 30.81 through 30.88
would require one-time administrative
expenses of approximately $13.0
million. These costs are associated with
changes to Department systems and
contractors. In addition, we estimate an
additional cost of $18.0 million for
waivers associated with § 682.403. This
is due to the assumption of a perborrower cost for processing the waiver
on an assigned loan.
Unduplicated Estimate of the Number of
Borrowers Receiving Waivers Because of
§§ 30.81 Through 30.88 and Part 682,
Subpart D
The estimates in the above discussion
showed the projected effect of each
27603
waiver as a distinct action. An
exception to this is the estimate for
§ 30.82, which does not include
borrowers who are eligible in § 30.81.
Doing so reflects the separate and
independent nature of the provisions
and how the rationale behind each is
unique. However, it is possible that a
given borrower could end up in
multiple categories. Therefore, to assist
readers in understanding the combined
total of these potential waivers, we
present Table 3.12 below. This table
shows the estimated effect of these
provisions in terms of the number of
borrowers affected. The total for each
provision is included independently,
and matches the numbers provided in
the tables above. In the last row, we
display that 27.6 million unique
borrowers, de-duplicated across all
provisions, that would receive a waiver.
This number removes duplication from
the tables that are found elsewhere in
this subsection of the RIA.
TABLE 3.12—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF BORROWERS WHO WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR WAIVERS UNDER VARIOUS
PROVISIONS
Number of
borrowers
(millions)
§ 30.81 Waiver when the current balance exceeds the balance upon entering repayment for borrowers on an IDR plan ............
§ 30.82 Any balance growth Up to $20K ..........................................................................................................................................
§ 30.83 Waiver based on time since a loan first entered repayment ...............................................................................................
§ 30.84 Waiver when a loan is eligible for forgiveness based upon repayment plan ......................................................................
§ 30.85 Waiver when a loan is eligible for a targeted forgiveness opportunity. ...............................................................................
§ 30.86 Waiver based upon Secretarial actions ...............................................................................................................................
§ 30.88 Waiver for closed Gainful Employment (GE) programs with high debt-to-earnings rates or low median earnings ...........
Part 682 Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program Subpart D—Administration of the Federal Family Education Loan
Programs by a Guaranty Agency ....................................................................................................................................................
Unique Borrowers across §§ 30.81 through 30.88 and Part 682, Subpart D .....................................................................................
6.4
19.0
2.6
1.7
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.9
27.6
Notes: All numbers are rounded.
4. Net Budget Impact
Table 4.1 provides an estimate of the
net Federal budget impact of these
proposed regulations that are
summarized in Table 2.2 of this RIA.
This includes both costs of a
modification to existing loan cohorts
and costs for loan cohorts from 2025 to
2034. A cohort reflects all loans
originated in a given fiscal year.
Consistent with the requirements of the
Credit Reform Act of 1990, budget cost
estimates for the student loan programs
reflect the estimated net present value of
all future non-administrative Federal
costs associated with a cohort of loans.
The baseline for estimating the cost of
these final regulations is the President’s
Budget for 2025 (PB2025).
TABLE 4.1—ESTIMATED BUDGET IMPACT OF THE NPRM
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
[$ in millions]
Modification
score
(1994–2024)
Section
Description
§ 30.83 ....................................
Loans that first entered repayment 20 or 25 years ago as of
FY2025.
Eligible for forgiveness on an IDR plan but not currently enrolled in an IDR plan.
Took out loans during cohorts that caused school to lose
access to aid due to high CDRs.
Eligible for a closed school loan discharge but has not successfully applied.
§ 30.84 ....................................
§ 30.86 ....................................
§ 30.85 ....................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
Outyear
score
(2025–2034)
Total
(1994–2034)
13,762
........................
13,762
8,663
........................
8,663
15
........................
15
7,565
........................
7,565
17APP3
27604
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4.1—ESTIMATED BUDGET IMPACT OF THE NPRM—Continued
[$ in millions]
Description
§ 30.86–§ 30.88 .......................
Borrowed to attend a gainful employment program that lost
access to aid or closed.
Current balance exceeds amount owed upon entering repayment for borrowers on an IDR plan with income below
certain thresholds.
Current balance exceeds amount owed upon entering repayment for borrowers not on an IDR plan or who are on
an IDR plan but have incomes above the thresholds in
30.81.
Commercial FFEL loans that first entered repayment 25
years ago; eligible for a closed school discharge, but
have not applied; or loans to attend a school that lost access to aid due to high CDRs, for applicable cohort.
§ 30.81 ....................................
§ 30.82 ....................................
§ 682.403 ................................
It is possible that borrowers may
qualify for more than one provision, but
they can only receive one waiver of the
full outstanding balance of a loan.
Accordingly, the primary budget
estimate stacks the scores in the order
shown with waivers resulting in the full
relief of a loan’s outstanding balance
evaluated prior to considering waivers
related to partial forgiveness of amounts
related to balance growth. However, all
the relief available to borrowers of FFEL
loans is reflected in one estimate after
the estimates for the other provisions.
The Department believes this stacked
estimation is appropriate for the
primary estimates of the proposed
regulations.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Modification
score
(1994–2024)
Section
Methodology for Budget Impact
The Department estimated the budget
impact of the provisions in this draft
rule that permits the Secretary to waive
some or all of the outstanding balance
of loans through changes to the
Department’s Death, Disability, and
Bankruptcy (DDB) assumption that
handles a broad range of loan discharges
or adjustments, the collections
assumption to reflect balance changes
on loans that ever defaulted, and the
IDR assumption for effects on borrowers
in those repayment plans. The projected
amount of forgiveness is estimated
based on administrative data about the
loan portfolio that allows us to identify
loans eligible for the various waivers.
The DDB assumption is used in the
Student Loan Model (SLM) to determine
the rate and timing of loan discharges
due to the death, disability, bankruptcy,
or other discharge of the borrowers. The
SLM is designed to calculate cash flow
estimates for the Department’s Federal
postsecondary student loan programs in
compliance with the Federal Credit
Reform Act (FCRA) and all relevant
federal guidance. The SLM calculates
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
student loan net cost estimates for loan
cohorts where a cohort consists of the
loans originated in a given budget
(fiscal) year. The model operates with
input data obtained from historical
experience and other relevant data
sources. The SLM cash flow
components range from origination fees
through scheduled principal and
interest payments, defaults, collections,
recoveries, and fees. The cash flow time
period begins with the fiscal year of first
disbursement and ends with the fiscal
year of the events at the end of the life
of the loan: repayment, discharge, or
forgiveness.
For each loan cohort, the SLM
contains separate DDB rates by loan
program, population (Non-Consolidated,
Consolidated Not From Default, and
Consolidated From Default), loan type,
and budget risk group (Two-Year Public
and Not-for-Profit, Two-Year
Proprietary, Four-Year Freshman and
Sophomore, Four-Year Junior and
Senior, and Graduate Student). The DDB
rate is the sum of several component
rates that reflect underlying claims data
and assumptions about the effect of
policy changes and updated data on
future claims activity. In general, DDB
claims are aggregated as the numerator
by fiscal year of origination and
population, program, loan type, risk
group, and years from origination until
the DDB claims. Zeros are used for any
missing categories in the numerator. Net
loan amounts are aggregated as the
denominator by fiscal year of
origination and population, program
loan type, and risk group. The DDB rate
is simply the ratio of the numerator to
the denominator. Because the SLM only
allows for DDB rates to be specified up
to 30 years from origination, DDB claims
occurring more than 30 years after
origination are included in the year 30
rate. DDB rates for future cohorts are
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Outyear
score
(2025–2034)
Total
(1994–2034)
11,927
15,274
27,201
10,966
........................
10,966
62,094
........................
62,094
17,053
........................
17,053
forecasted using weighted averages of
prior year rates and have a number of
additions and adjustment factors built
into it to capture policies or anticipated
discharges that are not reflected in the
processed discharge data yet including
adjustments for anticipated increased
borrower defense and closed school
activity.
For estimates related to waivers
granted to borrowers enrolled in IDR
repayment plans, the Department has a
borrower and loan type level submodel
that generates representative cashflows
for use in the SLM. This IDR submodel
contains information about borrowers’
time in repayment, the use of
deferments and forbearances, estimated
incomes and filing statuses, and annual
balances. For these estimates, we also
imputed whether the borrower would be
eligible for the waivers related to CDR
or GE in proposed §§ 30.86 through
30.88. Therefore, we are able to identify
the borrowers in the IDR submodel who
would be eligible for one of the
proposed waivers and incorporate that
effect either by ending the payment
cycle for borrowers who receive a total
balance waiver or eliminating the excess
balance for borrowers who would be
eligible for waivers under either
§§ 30.81 or 30.82.
Partial forgiveness of balances for
borrowers already modeled to be on an
IDR plan can have three different effects
depending upon whether or not the
borrower was expected to get IDR
forgiveness prior to these waivers, and
whether the waiver changes that
anticipated outcome. These effects are:
1. Before and after the policy is
applied, borrowers are expected to
receive some IDR forgiveness at the end
of their repayment term. For these
borrowers, the waivers would affect the
amount ultimately forgiven, but because
payments are based upon income and
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
the amount of time borrowers are
expected to repay is unchanged, there is
no effect on the amount of anticipated
future payments.
2. The borrower was expected to
receive IDR forgiveness before the
policy’s application, but afterward is
now expected to pay off their balance
before receiving IDR forgiveness.
Because these borrowers are now
expected to repay in less time, there is
some reduction in the amount of
anticipated future payments.
3. Before applying the policy, the
borrower was expected to retire their
loan balance prior to receiving IDR
forgiveness, but as a result of the policy
is now expected to retire their balance
sooner. Because these borrowers are
now expected to repay in less time,
there is some reduction in the amount
of anticipated future payments.
We project that most borrowers
modeled to be on IDR would end up in
the first group. Since these borrowers
would not see a change in the amount
they pay before receiving forgiveness,
we do not assign a cost to the waivers
for these borrowers. Any costs
associated with the forgiveness of
amounts above the balance owed at
repayment entry for IDR borrowers is
limited to the minority of borrowers in
the second and third groups, for whom
the forgiveness reduces the number of
payments needed to fully repay their
loan. The result is we do not anticipate
significant costs for the waivers that
would be granted under §§ 30.81 or
30.82 for borrowers in IDR.
We are not assigning an estimated
outyear budget cost to the provisions in
§ 30.84 related to borrowers who are
eligible for forgiveness on a repayment
plan but have not successfully enrolled
in such plan. We already assign a high
percentage of future borrowers who
would be eligible for forgiveness on an
IDR plan as being in an IDR plan,
including those with lower balances.
Therefore, our assumption is that this
provision will only affect borrowers
who have already accumulated time in
repayment.
For estimates related to the effects of
the proposed waiver provisions on
borrowers with loans not in IDR plans,
the Department’s approach is to: (1)
estimate the potential waiver amounts
borrowers would be eligible for and
aggregate them by loan cohort, loan
type, and budget risk group used in the
SLM; (2) Add the waiver amounts for
non-defaulted, non-IDR borrowers to the
Department’s baseline DDB assumption
in FY 2025; and (3) remove the amounts
associated with the waiver provisions
from defaulted, non-IDR borrowers from
the baseline collections assumption.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
The revised IDR, DDB and collections
groups are run in a SLM scenario for
each provision to generate the estimates
in Table 4.1. To produce the potential
waiver amounts in Step 1 of this
process, the Department developed a
loan level file based on the FY2022
sample of NSLDS information used for
preparing budget estimates. Information
from this file allows the evaluation of
times in repayment that qualify for one
of the provisions and anticipated
balances at the end of FY2024 for use in
calculating the amount that the
Secretary may waive for borrowers who
have experienced balance growth.
To help estimate the costs of §§ 30.86
through 30.88, as well as
§ 682.403(b)(3), the Department
reviewed information about institutions
that lost eligibility to participate in title
IV for CDR and the relevant timeframes
for those actions and identified loans
that would be eligible for a CDR-based
waiver under § 30.86 and
§ 682.403(b)(3). Similarly, we identified
loans for borrowers that entered
repayment within a fiscal year of an
institution’s closure in the list of closed
schools and assumed they would be
eligible for a total balance waiver under
§ 30.85 and § 682.403(b)(3).102 To
estimate the effects of § 30.88, similar
identification was made of students
with outstanding loan balances who
attended GE programs that failed the GE
metrics based on the data from the 2015,
2016, and 2017 Award Years released in
2023 and did not have any students who
received Title IV aid from 2018
onwards, as shown in Table 3.10.
Approximately 7.4 percent of loans
made by cohort 2024 in our sample
qualified for total balance waiver under
one of these provisions. The proposed
waivers in these three sections are also
applicable going forward, but the
Department does not estimate a
significant cost related to the CDR or
closed school waiver provisions. No
institutions have lost eligibility based
on CDR performance since the 2014
CDR rates and only 28 institutions have
lost eligibility on this basis since 1997,
so we do not expect this to be a
significant source of waivers for future
cohorts. We also assume that closed
school discharges for future loan cohorts
are already captured in our baseline
estimates especially given the automatic
closed school discharge provision now
in effect.103 Therefore, the primary
102 Federal Student Aid, Closed School Search
File.xlsx downloaded 2/15/2024 from https://
www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/PEPS/
closedschools.html.
103 These provisions are currently
administratively stayed pending appeal in Career
Colleges and Schools of Texas v. U.S. Department
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
27605
source of outyear costs estimated for
these provisions is Gainful Employment
performance, and a separate process
using the results of the model used to
estimate the cost of that regulation was
used to generate an estimate for cohorts
2021–2034.
These estimates are all based off the
same random sample of borrowers that
is used for all other budget estimation
activity related to Federal student loans
for the Department. Currently, the most
recent sample available is from the end
of FY2022, which is the best currently
available data that maintains the
Department’s consistent scoring
practices. The Department recognizes
from its general ledger records that there
have been a significant number of loan
discharges granted since that sample
was pulled. This particularly includes
forgiveness tied to IDR and PSLF.
In this NPRM, the Department
provides our best budget estimates
based on the most recent sample used
in the required baseline, while noting
that this data does not allow the
Department to adjust for these recent
discharges because they occurred after
the date the sample used in that
baseline was generated. The
Department’s PB2025 baseline projects
its best estimates of future discharges
based on the sample data and other
information available when the baseline
is developed. As a new sample is drawn
and updated balances and loan
information are available for analysis,
we will incorporate that into the
analysis of these waiver provisions in
the final rule so that we do not attribute
existing discharges to these waivers. For
instance, between 2022 and 2023 the
Department approved hundreds of
thousands of additional discharges for
borrowers through fixes to IDR and
PSLF as well as automatic relief for
borrowers with a total and permanent
disability, and discharges based upon
borrower defense findings and covered
by related court settlements. These
discharges include almost $44 billion in
approved discharges for more than
901,000 borrowers through IDR,
approximately 200,000 borrowers
through a court settlement, and more
than 150,000 borrowers through PSLF.
The discharges also include a few tens
of thousands of borrowers through total
and permanent disability discharges.
The Department also approved roughly
10,000 new discharges based upon
borrower defense to repayment findings
of Education, No. 23–50491 (5th Cir.). Because the
rule has not been permanently enjoined nor has a
court found that the challenge to the rule is likely
to succeed on the merits, the Department maintains
this assumption for these purposes.
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
27606
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
and continued processing relief for
previously approved discharges.
While the Department’s best estimates
based on the most recent sample cannot
adjust for such discharges for the
reasons explained above, we can
anticipate these different types of
discharges are most likely to affect
certain provisions. Discharges through
income-based repayment could
primarily reduce the costs of § 30.83;
those for PSLF could primarily affect
the cost of § 30.81; and those for
borrower defense and other types of
discharges could primarily affect § 30.82
because these borrowers are less likely
to be on an IDR plan, or they could
affect the costs of §§ 30.85 through 30.88
because some of these borrowers may
have otherwise been eligible for a closed
school loan discharge or attended
programs that failed to provide
sufficient financial value because they
failed to meet standards of debt-toearnings or earnings premium and have
closed. We anticipate having a more
recent sample for FY2023 available by
the time we write a final rule. As a
result, we anticipate that final rule
would reflect those discharges that have
already occurred, which may affect the
results in the net budget estimate for the
final rule.
Gainful Employment
The Department used the information
about projected passage and failure rates
of GE programs (also described as
program transition rates) in the 2023
final GE regulation 104 along with
enrollment and average loans in the
associated categories and respective
years to calculate the total amount of
Federal loans that students in programs
that fail GE metrics will get relief from
2021–2034 under § 30.86. In our
modeling we do not project that
institutions will voluntarily close
programs prior to a failure or other
Secretarial action based on failing to
deliver sufficient financial value, so we
do not include any modeling for § 30.87.
The rates for 2026 represent the program
transition rates before the second GE
metrics will be published and programs
could lose eligibility for students who
attend to borrow Federal loans and
receive Pell Grants. For our budget
estimate, the time frame for applying
these rates was extended back to 2021
to account for students who attended
during the years on which the metrics
are based and would subsequently get
relief on their associated Federal loans.
As done in the analyses of the 2014 and
2023 GE regulations, the Department
assumes institutions at risk of warning
or sanction would take at least some
steps to improve program performance
by improving program quality,
increasing job placement and academic
support staff, and lowering prices
(leading to lower levels of debt).
Evidence and further discussion of this
can be found in the 2023 GE regulation.
Therefore, the rates for 2027 to 2033
represent the program transition rates
after programs could be sanctioned and
reflect an increase in the probability of
having a passing result. In this analysis,
the rates for 2027 to 2033 were used in
calculating the amount of total relief for
cohorts 2027 to 2034, extending to the
last outyear of the current budget
window.
To calculate the percent of enrollment
by program type, performance category,
and cohort that would receive relief, the
program transition rates for the given
year were transformed to account for
students whose loans would be eligible
for forgiveness in that year, in the next
year, and two years out. These percents
are shown below in Table 4.2. For all
enrollment at programs that fail for a
second time and are deemed to become
ineligible moving forward, students in
qualifying cohorts would be eligible to
receive relief on their associated loans
to attend those programs, which is
indicated by the 100 percent for preineligible programs. To estimate the
percent of enrollment at programs with
one failure (for D/E, EP, or both) whose
students would be eligible for
forgiveness in the next year, the rate of
one failure was multiplied by the rate of
a following second failure that would
cause the program to become ineligible
moving forward. To estimate the percent
of enrollment at programs that are
passing in a given year but whose
students would be eligible to receive
relief in two years, the rate of a passing
program getting a failure in the next
cycle was multiplied by the rate of it
failing again. For example, the program
transition assumptions for GE programs
in the 2023 GE rule 105 shows that for 4year programs in 2027, the rate of
passing programs expected to fail D/E,
EP, or both in the next year are 3.1
percent, 0 percent, and 0.2 percent,
respectively. The rates of each of these
paths for a passing program to fail a
metric in the following year were
multiplied by the rates of the program
failing the same or both metrics again
and becoming ineligible, 73.5 percent
for EP, 87.7 percent for DE, and 89.6
percent for both. Once those two sets of
rates are multiplied by their failure
status and summed together, the final
estimate for the percent of enrollment at
passing programs in 2027 to become
eligible for relief in 2 years is 2.5
percent, calculated by ((3.1 percent *
73.5 percent) + (0 percent * 87.7
percent) + (0.2 percent * 89.6 percent)).
Last, students at programs that were
already deemed ineligible in the past
would not receive Federal aid to attend
and therefore not be eligible to receive
relief on those loans, which is indicated
by the 0 percent for ineligible programs.
These percentages were multiplied by
the enrollment and average loans
calculated in the 2023 GE regulation in
the associated categories (loan type and
budget risk group) and respective years
(cohorts 2021–2026 and 2027–2034) to
calculate the total loans that would be
eligible for relief under § 30.86.
TABLE 4.2—PERCENT OF ENROLLMENT THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR RELIEF BY PROGRAM TYPE AND PERFORMANCE
CATEGORY
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
2021–2026
Proprietary 2-year or less
Pass ......................................................................................................................................................
Fail D/E only .........................................................................................................................................
Fail EP only ..........................................................................................................................................
Fail Both ...............................................................................................................................................
Pre-Ineligible .........................................................................................................................................
Ineligible ................................................................................................................................................
Public and Nonprofit 2-year or less
Pass ......................................................................................................................................................
Fail D/E only .........................................................................................................................................
104 88
FR 70158 (October 10, 2023).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
105 88
PO 00000
FR 70158 (October 10, 2023).
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
2027–2034
7.8
81.2
89.2
96.6
100.0
0.0
5.3
76.2
84.2
91.6
100.0
0.0
2.2
39.5
0.8
34.5
27607
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4.2—PERCENT OF ENROLLMENT THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR RELIEF BY PROGRAM TYPE AND PERFORMANCE
CATEGORY—Continued
2021–2026
Fail EP only ..........................................................................................................................................
Fail Both ...............................................................................................................................................
Pre-Ineligible .........................................................................................................................................
Ineligible ................................................................................................................................................
4-year
Pass ......................................................................................................................................................
Fail D/E only .........................................................................................................................................
Fail EP only ..........................................................................................................................................
Fail Both ...............................................................................................................................................
Pre-Ineligible .........................................................................................................................................
Ineligible ................................................................................................................................................
Graduate
Pass ......................................................................................................................................................
Fail D/E only .........................................................................................................................................
Fail EP only ..........................................................................................................................................
Fail Both ...............................................................................................................................................
Pre-Ineligible .........................................................................................................................................
Ineligible ................................................................................................................................................
Once estimated, the dollar amounts of
forgiveness from this gainful
employment performance metric is
aggregated by cohort, loan type, and
budget risk group and divided by the
net loan volume for those same
categories. This generated an adjustment
factor based on the modeled future GE
rate performance that is added to the
PB2025 baseline DDB rate. To get the
full potential cost of the GE related
provisions, those increased DDB rates
were fed into the second step of the
main estimation process for the non-IDR
estimate so that the combined effects on
DDB can be loaded as one DDB
assumption group in the SLM as
increased DDB rates. This resulted in
the increase in costs associated with the
gainful employment provision of
approximately $27.2 billion for cohorts
1994–2034.
Budget Impact Sensitivities
While the primary estimates
presented in Table 4.1 are based on the
best data the Department has available
currently, we recognize some of the
impacts depend on borrower action in
the period since our data was extracted
and the implementation of the proposed
waiver provisions. One effect is the
response of programs and institutions if
they have a program that fails the GE
regulations. The primary estimate
includes assumptions that some failing
programs improve and therefore do not
fail again and lose access to title IV,
HEA programs. In the alternative budget
scenario, we model the effects if there
is no improvement by failing GE
programs. We use the results of that
scenario from the gainful employment
final rule to estimate the higher outyear
costs displayed in Table 4.3.
Another modeling assumption that
affects the net budget impact of the
proposed waivers relates to the payment
behavior of borrowers in FY 2024.
Payments and interest have resumed
following the multi-year COVID–19
2027–2034
52.7
70.9
100.0
0.0
47.7
65.9
100.0
0.0
4.7
78.6
96.5
94.6
100.0
0.0
2.5
73.6
91.3
89.6
100.0
0.0
2.4
80.1
0.0
91.3
100.0
0.0
0.4
75.1
0.0
86.3
100.0
0.0
payment pause and the extent to which
borrowers do not make payments and
accumulate additional interest or make
payments and therefore reduce interest
that has already accumulated will affect
the net budget impact. The Department
has looked at payment reports from the
initial months since the return to
repayment and looked at the percentage
of outstanding balances in repayment
were less than 31 days delinquent. In
the primary net budget impact score, we
assumed that half of the borrowers that
were more than 31 days late in the nonIDR, non-defaulted part of our sample
would start to make payments prior to
the rule taking effect and did not add
additional interest to their balance. For
this alternative, we added a year of
interest to all borrowers in deferment,
forbearance, or over 30 days delinquent
statuses to estimate the effect of this
payment behavior factor.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
TABLE 4.3—ALTERNATE BUDGET SCENARIOS
Modification
score
(1994–2024)
Alternative scenario
Description
Payers in FY2024 ...................
The estimated balances in FY2024 depend on assumption
about borrower payment behavior. This alternative adds a
year of interest to the 37% of borrowers not in a good
payment status (under 30 days delinquent) in January
2024 payment reporting. This compares to the primary
estimate in which half of those borrowers in delinquent,
deferred, or forbearance status were treated as paying.
Uses the No Program Improvement estimate from GE modeling to estimate increased outyear impact from more students being in programs that fail the accountability measures.
GE No Program Improvement
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
Outyear score
(2025–2034)
Total
(1994–2034)
68,272
0
68,272
11,927
19,835
31,762
17APP3
27608
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
5. Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A–4, we
have prepared an accounting statement
showing the classification of the
expenditures associated with the
provisions of these regulations. Table
5.1 provides our best estimate of the
changes in annual monetized transfers
that may result from these proposed
regulations.
TABLE 5.1—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT: CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
[In millions]
Category
Benefits
Reduction in loans that are unlikely to be repaid in full in a reasonable period ................................................................
Increased ability for borrowers to repay loans that have grown beyond their balance at repayment entry ......................
Reduced administrative burden for Department due to reduced servicing, default, and collection costs .........................
Category
Not quantified
Not quantified
Not quantified
Costs
2%
$12.06
Costs of compliance with paperwork requirements for guaranty agencies and commercial FFEL loan holders ..............
One-time administrative costs to Federal government to update systems and contracts to implement the proposed
regulations ........................................................................................................................................................................
Category
3.4
Transfers
Reduced transfers from borrowers due to waivers: ............................................................................................................
Based on excess balances upon entering repayment of IDR borrowers under income limits in § 30.81 ..........................
Based on excess balances upon entering repayment of all borrowers in § 30.82 .............................................................
Based on time in repayment in § 30.83 ...............................................................................................................................
Based on eligibility for forgiveness in IDR in § 30.84 ..........................................................................................................
Based on eligibility for forgiveness from Closed School in § 30.85 ....................................................................................
Based on eligibility for forgiveness from CDR in § 30.86 ....................................................................................................
Based on eligibility for forgiveness from GE in § 30.86–§ 30.88 .........................................................................................
Based on provisions affecting commercial FFEL borrowers in § 682.403 ..........................................................................
2%
1,197
6,777
2,893
945
826
2
2,848
1,861
Expenditures are classified as transfers from the Federal government to affected student loan borrowers.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
6. Alternatives Considered
The Department considered the
option of not proposing these
regulations. However, we believe these
rules are important to inform the public
about how the Secretary would exercise
his longstanding authority related to
waiver in a consistent manner. The
Department thinks foregoing these
proposed regulations would reduce
transparency about the Secretary’s
discretionary use of waiver. For all the
reasons detailed above, such waivers
would produce substantial, critical
benefits for borrowers and the
Department, among others, and reduce
some costs for the Department as well.
Overall, the Department’s analysis of
costs and benefits weighs in favor of the
proposed regulations.
As part of the development of these
proposed regulations, the Department
engaged in a negotiated rulemaking
process in which we received comments
and proposals from non-Federal
negotiators representing numerous
impacted constituencies. These
included higher education institutions,
legal assistance organizations, consumer
advocacy organizations, student loan
borrowers, civil rights organizations,
state officials, and state attorneys
general. Non-Federal negotiators
submitted a variety of proposals relating
to the issues under discussion.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
Information about these proposals is
available on our negotiated rulemaking
website at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/
highered/reg/hearulemaking/2023/
index.html.
In drafting this NPRM, the
Department considered many
alternatives. For provisions related to
waiving balances beyond what a
borrower owed upon entering
repayment, we considered several ideas
that would have provided a capped
amount of relief for borrowers that met
certain conditions. For instance, during
negotiated rulemaking we considered
capping the amount of a waiver at
$20,000 for borrowers on IDR plans with
incomes at or below 225 percent of the
Federal poverty guidelines. However,
many negotiators raised concerns that
the amount of relief granted was too low
to fully address the issue of balance
growth. They also raised concerns that
having such an income cap would miss
many middle-income borrowers who
have also experienced balance growth
and need assistance. We were
convinced by these comments that it
would be better to provide relief to a
wider group of borrowers and instead
protect against providing undue benefits
to the highest income borrowers, which
is reflected in this proposed rule in
§ 30.81. We thought this approach was
superior to alternative ways to address
concerns about targeting, such as
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
providing a sliding scale of relief that
would decrease as income rises. We
were concerned that such an approach
would be operationally complicated and
confusing to explain to borrowers.
Similarly, we considered providing up
to $10,000 in relief for borrowers not on
an IDR plan or whose incomes were
above a certain threshold as opposed to
the $20,000 limit proposed in this draft
rule. However, we were persuaded
during negotiated rulemaking that a
relief threshold of $10,000 would miss
providing sufficient assistance to large
numbers of borrowers who need the
help to successfully manage their debts.
Regarding the waiver in § 30.83 for
loans that entered repayment a long
time ago, we considered applying the
thresholds for shortened time to
forgiveness present in the SAVE plan.
This provision provides forgiveness
after as few as 10 years of payments for
borrowers who originally took out
$12,000 or less, with a sliding scale of
an additional year of payments for each
added $1,000 in borrowing. However,
we thought such an approach would not
be appropriate because this timeline is
only available under the SAVE plan. By
contrast, the goal of § 30.83 is to address
situations where borrowers have been
unable to fully repay in a reasonable
time and have not even been able to
repay in full over an extended period.
This extended period is consistent with
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
the forgiveness timelines on other IDR
plans, which provide repayment terms
of up to 20 or 25 years.
For the provisions in § 682.403, the
Department considered two alternatives.
We considered permitting waivers for
loans that first entered repayment 20
years ago instead of 25. However, the
only IDR plan available to FFEL
borrowers provides forgiveness after 25
years, so we did not think it was
appropriate to select a forgiveness
period that is otherwise unavailable for
these borrowers. We also considered
including a provision similar to § 30.84
for borrowers who are eligible for but
haven’t applied for IBR. However, we do
not believe we would have the data to
make such a determination so did not
include it.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
7. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary certifies, under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), that this final regulatory action
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of
‘‘small entities.’’
These regulations will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because they
are focused on arrangements between
the borrower and the Department. They
do not affect institutions of higher
education in any way, and these entities
are typically the focus on the Regulatory
Flexibility Act analysis. As noted in the
Paperwork Reduction Act section,
burden related to the final regulations
will be assessed in a separate
information collection process and that
burden is expected to involve
individuals more than institutions of
any size.
8. Paperwork Reduction Act
As part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department provides the
general public and Federal agencies
with an opportunity to comment on
proposed and continuing collections of
information in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps
provide that: the public understands the
Department’s collection instructions,
respondents can provide the requested
data in the desired format, reporting
burden (time and financial resources) is
minimized, collection instruments are
clearly understood, and the Department
can properly assess the impact of
collection requirements on respondents.
Proposed § 682.403 in this NPRM
contains information collection
requirements. Under the PRA, the
Department would, at the required time,
submit a copy of these sections and an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
Information Collections Request to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for its review.
A Federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor a collection of information
unless OMB approves the collection
under the PRA and the corresponding
information collection instrument
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no person is required
to comply with, or is subject to penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection
of information if the collection
instrument does not display a currently
valid OMB control number. In the final
regulations, we would display the
control numbers assigned by OMB to
any information collection requirements
proposed in this NPRM and adopted in
the final regulations.
Section 682.403—Waiver of FFEL
Program loan debt.
Requirements: The NPRM proposes to
amend part 682 by adding a new
§ 682.403 to allow the Secretary to
waive specific Federal Family
Education Loan (FFEL) Program loans
held by private lenders or managed by
guaranty agencies.
In the case of FFEL Program loans
held by a private loan holder or a
guaranty agency, under proposed
§ 682.403(a) the Secretary may waive
the outstanding balance of a FFEL
Program loan when a loan first entered
into repayment on or before July 1,
2000; when the borrower is otherwise
eligible for, but has not successfully
applied for, a closed school discharge;
or when the borrower attended an
institution that lost its title IV eligibility
due to a high CDR, if the borrower was
included in the cohort whose debt was
used to calculate the CDR or rates that
were the basis for the institution’s loss
of eligibility. If the Secretary chose to
exercise his discretion under this
section, the Secretary would notify the
lender that a loan qualifies for a waiver
and the lender would be instructed to
submit a claim to the guaranty agency.
The guaranty agency would pay the
claim, be reimbursed by the Secretary,
and assign the loan to the Secretary.
After the loan is assigned, the Secretary
would grant the waiver.
Sections 682.403(c), and (d) describe
the specific requirements of the waiver
claim filing process for a lender, and
guaranty agency, with the Department.
Section 682.403(c) Notification
provides that if the Secretary determines
that a loan qualifies for a waiver, the
Secretary notifies the lender and directs
the lender to submit a waiver claim to
the applicable guaranty agency and to
suspend collection activity or to
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
27609
maintain suspension of collection
activities on the loan.
Section 682.403(d) Claim Procedures
describes the waiver claim procedures.
Under proposed § 682.403(d)(1), the
guaranty agency would be required to
establish and enforce standards and
procedures for the timely filing of
waiver claims by lenders.
Proposed § 682.403(d)(2) would
require the lender to submit a claim for
the full outstanding balance of the loan
to the guaranty agency within 75 days
of the date the lender received the
notification from the Secretary. Under
proposed § 682.403(d)(3), the lender
would be required to provide the
guaranty agency with an original or a
true and exact copy of the promissory
note and the notification from the
Secretary when filing a waiver claim.
Proposed § 682.403(d)(4) would allow a
lender to provide alternative
documentation deemed acceptable to
the Secretary if the lender is not in
possession of an original or true and
exact copy of the promissory note.
Proposed §§ 682.403(d)(5) and (d)(6)
would require the guaranty agency to
review the waiver claim and determine
whether it meets the applicable
requirements. If the guaranty agency
determines that the claim meets the
requirements specified in proposed
§§ 682.403(d)(3) and 682.403(d)(4) the
guaranty agency would be required to
pay the claim within 30 days of the date
the claim was received.
Proposed § 682.403(d)(9)(i) would
require the guaranty agency to assign
the loan to the Secretary within 75 days
of the date the guaranty agency pays the
claim and receives the reimbursement
payment. If the guaranty agency is the
loan holder, under proposed
§ 682.403(d)(9)(ii) the guaranty agency
would be required to assign the loan on
the date that the guaranty agency
receives the notice from the Secretary.
Burden Calculations
§ 682.403(d)(1) Claim Procedures.
The proposed regulatory changes
would add burden to lenders and
guaranty agencies and would require a
new collection in the Federal Student
Aid information collection catalog. As
noted in Table 3.11 in this RIA and
explained in the costs, benefits, and
transfers section, we currently estimate
that approximately 900,000 commercial
FFEL borrowers would qualify for this
waiver claim. Of these, an estimated
300,000 are currently in default at a
guaranty agency and therefore are not
affected by the claim procedures related
to lenders. These waivers affect the
current 314 lenders (268 For-Profit and
46 Not-For-Profit) and the current 12
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
27610
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
guaranty agencies (6 Not-For-Profit and
6 Public). Among those 12 guaranty
agencies we estimate that about 80
percent of borrowers would be
processed by Not-For-Profit guarantors
and 20 percent would be processed by
Public guarantors. The costs are
estimated using the median hourly wage
of $31.60 reported by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics for loan officers.106 We
estimated the number of hours needed
per task in the sections below based
upon discussions with Department staff
that have worked on similar processes
in the past. These figures and
considerations are the basis for the
following estimations.
The proposed regulations in
§ 682.403(d)(1) Claim Procedures would
require the 12 guaranty agencies to
establish and enforce standard
procedures of timely waiver filing by
affected lenders.
We estimate that these procedures
would follow the current discharge
processes that guaranty agencies utilize,
therefore minimizing development of
the new procedures. We estimate that it
would take each guaranty agency two
hours to draft the required standard
procedures for a total of 24 hours (12
guaranty agencies × 2 hours).
§ 682.403(d)(1) CLAIM PROCEDURES—OMB CONTROL NUMBER 1845–NEW
Affected entity
Respondent
Responses
Burden hours
Cost
$31.60 per hour
Private non-profit .......................................................................................
Public .........................................................................................................
6
6
6
6
12
12
$379
379
Total ....................................................................................................
12
12
24
758
§§ 682.403(d)(2), (3), and (4) Claim
Procedures.
The proposed regulations in
§§ 682.403(d)(2), (3), and (4) Claim
Procedures would require affected
lenders to submit claims to the guaranty
agencies based on the notification
received from the Department as
established in § 682.403(c) within
seventy-five days of receiving the
notification. The documentation
includes the original or a true and exact
copy of the promissory note, and the
notification received from the
Department. If a lender does not have
the original or true and exact copy of the
promissory note, it may submit alternate
documentation acceptable to the
Secretary.
We are estimating that each lender
would require three hours per borrower
to gather the required documentation
together and prepare to submit the
documentation to the appropriate
guaranty agency for a total of 1,800,000
hours (600,000 borrowers × 3 hours).
§§ 682.403(d)(2), (3), AND (4) CLAIM PROCEDURES—OMB CONTROL NUMBER 1845–NEW
Affected entity
Respondent
Responses
Burden hours
Cost
$31.60 per hour
Private non-profit .......................................................................................
For-profit ....................................................................................................
46
268
90,000
510,000
270,000
1,530,000
$8,532,000
48,348,000
Total ....................................................................................................
314
600,000
1,800,000
56,880,000
§ 682.403(d)(5) Claim Procedures.
The proposed regulations in
§ 682.403(d)(5) Claim Procedures would
require affected guaranty agencies to
review the waiver claim and supporting
documentation from the lenders to
determine that the document meets the
requirements of §§ 682.403(d)(3), and
(4).
We estimate that it would take each
guaranty agency one hour to review the
incoming documentation for a total of
600,000 hours (600,000 borrower
documentation files × 1 hour).
§ 682.403(d)(5) CLAIM PROCEDURES—OMB CONTROL NUMBER 1845–NEW
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Affected entity
Respondent
Responses
Burden hours
Cost
$31.60 per hour
Private non-profit .......................................................................................
Public .........................................................................................................
6
6
480,000
120,000
480,000
120,000
$15,168,000
3,792,000
Total ....................................................................................................
12
600,000
600,000
18,960,000
§ 682.403(d)(6) Claim Procedures.
The proposed regulations in
§ 682.403(d)(6) Claim Procedures would
require affected guaranty agencies, after
determining waiver claims submitted by
the lender meet the regulatory
requirements, to pay the waiver claim to
the lenders within 30 days of receipt of
the waiver claim.
We estimate that it would take each
guaranty agency 20 minutes to prepare
and submit the payment for a total of
198,000 hours (600,000 borrower waiver
claim payment × .33 hours).
106 https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/
oes132072.htm.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
27611
§ 682.403(d)(6) CLAIM PROCEDURES—OMB CONTROL NUMBER 1845–NEW
Affected entity
Respondent
Responses
Burden hours
Cost
$31.60 per hour
Private non-profit .......................................................................................
Public .........................................................................................................
6
6
480,000
120,000
158,400
39,600
$5,005,440
1,251,360
Total ....................................................................................................
12
600,000
198,000
6,256,800
§ 682.403(d)(9) Claim Procedures.
The proposed regulations in
§ 682.403(d)(9) Claim Procedures would
require affected guaranty agencies to
assign a loan that it paid through the
waiver claim process within 75 days of
the date that it pays the waiver claim to
the lender or the date of notification
from the Department if the guaranty
agency is the lender.
We estimate that it would take each
guaranty agency one hour to assign the
loans which have been paid through the
waiver claim process or that was
otherwise already at the guarantor for a
total of 900,000 hours (900,000 borrower
documentation files × 1 hour).
§ 682.403(d)(9) CLAIM PROCEDURES—OMB CONTROL NUMBER 1845–NEW
Affected entity
Respondent
Responses
Burden hours
Cost
$31.60 per hour
Private non-profit .......................................................................................
Public .........................................................................................................
6
6
720,000
180,000
720,000
180,000
$22,752,000
5,688,000
Total ....................................................................................................
12
900,000
900,000
28,440,000
Consistent with the discussions
above, the following chart describes the
sections of the proposed regulations
involving information collections, the
information being collected and the
collections that the Department would
submit to OMB for approval and public
comment under the PRA, and the
estimated costs associated with the
information collections. The monetized
net cost of the increased burden for
institutions, lenders, guaranty agencies
and students, using wage data
developed using Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) data. For institutions,
lenders, and guaranty agencies we have
used the median hourly wage for Loan
Officers, $31.60 per hour according to
BLS. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/
oes132072.htm.
COLLECTION OF INFORMATION
Regulatory section
Information collection
OMB control No. and
estimated burden
§ 682.403(d)(1) .......................
Under proposed § 682.403(d)(1) the guaranty agency
would be required to establish and enforce standards
and procedures for the timely filing of waiver claims by
lenders.
The proposed regulations in 682.403(d)(2), (3), and (4)
Claim Procedures would require affected lenders to submit claims to the guaranty agencies based on the notification received from the Department as established in
682.403(c) within seventy-five days of receiving the notification. The documentation includes the original or a
true and exact copy of the promissory note, and the notification received from the Department. If a lender does
not have the original or true and exact copy of the promissory note, it may submit alternate documentation acceptable to the Secretary.
The proposed regulations in 682.403(d)(5) Claim Procedures would require affected guaranty agencies to review the waiver claim and supporting documentation
from the lenders to determine that the document meets
the requirements of 682.403(d)(3), and (4).
The proposed regulations in 682.403(d)(6) Claim Procedures would require affected guaranty agencies, after
determining waiver claims submitted by the lender meet
the regulatory requirements, to pay the waiver claim to
the lenders within thirty days of receipt of the waiver
claim.
1845–NEW; 24 hours ............
$758
1845–NEW; 1,800,000 ..........
56,880,000
1845–NEW; 600,000 .............
18,960,000
1845–NEW; 198,000 .............
6,256,800
§ 682.403(d)(2), (3), & (4) ......
§ 682.403(d)(5) .......................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 682.403(d)(6) .......................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
Estimated cost
$31.60 per hour
27612
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
COLLECTION OF INFORMATION—Continued
Regulatory section
Information collection
OMB control No. and
estimated burden
§ 682.403(d)(9) .......................
The proposed regulations in 682.403(d)(9) Claim Procedures would require affected guaranty agencies to assign a loan that it paid through the waiver claim process
with- in seventy-five days of the date that it pays the
waiver claim to the lender or the date of notification from
the Department if the guaranty agency is the lender.
1845–NEW; 900,000 .............
28,440,000
Total ................................
...............................................................................................
1845–NEW; 3,498,024 ..........
110,537,588
If you wish to review and comment
on the Information Collection Requests,
please follow the instructions in the
ADDRESSES section of this notification.
Note: The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs in OMB and the
Department review all comments posted
at www.regulations.gov.
In preparing your comments, you may
want to review the Information
Collection Request, including the
supporting materials, in
www.regulations.gov by using the
Docket ID number specified in this
notification. This proposed collection is
identified as proposed collection 1845–
NEW.
We consider your comments on these
proposed collections of information in—
• Deciding whether the proposed
collections are necessary for the proper
performance of our functions, including
whether the information will have
practical use.
• Evaluating the accuracy of our
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collections, including the validity of our
methodology and assumptions.
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness,
and clarity of the information we
collect; and
• Minimizing the burden on those
who must respond.
Consistent with 5 CFR 1320.8(d), the
Department is soliciting comments on
the information collection through this
document. Between 30 and 60 days after
publication of this document in the
Federal Register, OMB is required to
make a decision concerning the
collections of information contained in
these proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria.
Therefore, to make certain that OMB
gives your comments full consideration,
it is important that OMB receives your
comments on these Information
Collection Requests by May 17, 2024.
9. Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34
CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive Order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
strengthened Federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
10. Assessment of Education Impact
In accordance with section 411 of the
General Education Provisions Act, 20
U.S.C. 1221e–4, the Secretary
particularly requests comments on
whether these final regulations would
require transmission of information that
any other agency or authority of the
United States gathers or makes
available.
11. Federalism
Executive Order 13132 requires us to
provide meaningful and timely input by
State and local elected officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have Federalism implications.
‘‘Federalism implications’’ means
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. The proposed
regulations do not have Federalism
implications.
Accessible Format: On request to the
program contact person(s) listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
individuals with disabilities can obtain
this document in an accessible format.
The Department will provide the
requestor with an accessible format that
may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or
text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3
file, braille, large print, audiotape, or
compact disc, or other accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. You may access the official
edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations at
www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can
view this document, as well as all other
documents of this Department
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Estimated cost
$31.60 per hour
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
List of Subjects
34 CFR Part 30
Claims, Income taxes.
34 CFR Part 682
Administrative practice and
procedure, Colleges and universities,
Loan programs-education, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Student aid, Vocational education.
Miguel A. Cardona,
Secretary of Education.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Secretary of Education
proposes to amend parts 30 and 682 of
title 34 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 30—DEBT COLLECTION
1. The authority citation for part 30
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3(a)(1), and
1226a–1, 31 U.S.C. 3711(e), 31 U.S.C. 3716(b)
and 3720A, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 30.1 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2).
■ b. Revising paragraph (b).
■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(7) and
(c)(8) as paragraphs (c)(8) and (c)(9).
■ d. Adding a new paragraph (c)(7).
The additions and revisions read as
follows:
■
■
§ 30.1 What administrative actions may the
Secretary take to collect a debt?
(a) * * *
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(2) Refer the debt to the Government
Accountability Office for collection in
accordance with § 30.70(f).
*
*
*
*
*
(b) In taking any of the actions listed
in paragraph (a) of this section, the
Secretary complies with the
requirements of the Federal Claims
Collection Standards (FCCS) at 31 CFR
parts 900–904 that are not inconsistent
with the requirements of this part.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(7) Waive repayment of a debt under
subpart G of this part;
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Add § 30.9 to read as follows:
§ 30.9
Severability.
If any provision of this subpart or its
application to any person, act, or
practice is held invalid, the remainder
of the subpart or the application of its
provisions to any other person, act, or
practice will not be affected thereby.
§ 30.20
[Amended]
4. Section 30.20 is amended by:
(a) In paragraph (a)(1)(ii), removing
the words ‘‘IRS tax refund’’ and adding,
in their place, the words ‘‘Treasury
Offset Program’’.
■ (b) In paragraph (b)(2), adding the
word ‘‘or’’ after the semicolon.
■ (c) In paragraph (b)(3)(ii), removing
the semicolon and the word ‘‘or’’ and
adding, in their place, a period.
■ (d) Removing paragraph (b)(4).
■ 5. Section 30.23 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
follows:
■
■
§ 30.23 How must a debtor request an
opportunity to inspect and copy records
relating to a debt?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) All information provided to the
debtor in the notice under § 30.22 or
§ 30.33(b) that identifies the debtor, the
debt, and the program under which the
debt arose, together with any corrections
of that identifying information; and
*
*
*
*
*
§ 30.25
[Amended]
6. Section 30.25(c)(1)(ii)is amended by
removing the citation ‘‘(a)(1)’’ and
adding, in its place, the citation ‘‘(a)’’.
■
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 30.27
[Amended]
7. Section 30.27(c) is amended by
removing the citation ‘‘4 CFR 102.11’’
and adding, in its place, the citation ‘‘31
CFR 901.8’’.
■
§ 30.29
[Amended]
8. Section 30.29(a)(3) is amended by
removing the citation ‘‘4 CFR 102.3’’
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
and adding, in its place, the citation ‘‘31
CFR 901.3’’.
§ 30.30
[Amended]
9. Section 30.30(a)(3) is amended by
removing the citation ‘‘4 CFR 102.3’’
and adding, in its place, the citation ‘‘31
CFR 901.3’’.
■ 10. Section 30.33 is amended by
revising the section heading to read as
follows:
■
§ 30.33 What procedures does the
Secretary follow for Treasury Offset
Program offsets?
*
■
*
*
*
*
11. Add § 30.39 to read as follows:
§ 30.39
Severability.
If any provision of this subpart or its
application to any person, act, or
practice is held invalid, the remainder
of the subpart or the application of its
provisions to any other person, act, or
practice will not be affected thereby.
■ 12. Section 30.62 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1), and
(d)(1).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 30.62 When does the Secretary forego
interest, administrative costs, or penalties?
(a) For a debt of any amount based on
a loan, the Secretary may refrain from
collecting interest or charging
administrative costs or penalties to the
extent that compromise of these
amounts is appropriate under the
standards for compromise of a debt
contained in 31 CFR part 902 or to the
extent that waiver of repayment of these
amounts is appropriate under § 30.80.
(b) * * *
(1) Compromise of these amounts is
appropriate under the standards for
compromise of a debt contained in 31
CFR part 902; or
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) The Secretary has accepted an
installment plan under 31 CFR 901.8;
*
*
*
*
*
■ 13. Add § 30.69 to read as follows:
§ 30.69
Severability.
If any provision of this subpart or its
application to any person, act, or
practice is held invalid, the remainder
of the subpart or the application of its
provisions to any other person, act, or
practice will not be affected thereby.
■ 14. Section 30.70 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(1), (c)(1), (c)(2),
and (e)(1) as follows:
§ 30.70 How does the Secretary exercise
discretion to compromise a debt or to
suspend or terminate collection of a debt?
(a)(1) The Secretary may use the
standards in the FCCS, 31 CFR part 902,
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
27613
to determine whether compromise of a
debt is appropriate if the debt arises
under a program administered by the
Department, unless compromise of the
debt is subject to paragraph (b) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(c)(1) The Secretary may use the
standards in the FCCS, 31 CFR part 903,
to determine whether suspension or
termination of collection action on a
debt is appropriate.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph
(e) of this section, the Secretary—
*
*
*
*
*
(e)(1) Subject to paragraph (e)(2) of
this section, under the provisions of 31
CFR part 902 or 903, the Secretary may
compromise a debt in any amount, or
suspend or terminate collection of a
debt in any amount, if the debt arises
under the Federal Family Education
Loan Program authorized under title IV,
part B, of the HEA, the William D. Ford
Federal Direct Loan Program authorized
under title IV, part D of the HEA, the
Perkins Loan Program authorized under
title IV, part E, of the HEA, or the Health
Education Assistance Loan Program
authorized under sections 701–720 of
the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C.
292–292o.
■ 15. Add § 30.79 to read as follows:
§ 30.79
Severability.
If any provision of this subpart or its
application to any person, act, or
practice is held invalid, the remainder
of the subpart or the application of its
provisions to any other person, act, or
practice will not be affected thereby.
■ 16. Add subpart G to read as follows:
Subpart G—Waiver of Federal Student
Loan Debts
Sec.
30.80 Waiver of Federal student loan debts.
30.81 Waiver when the current balance
exceeds the balance upon entering
repayment for borrowers on an IDR plan.
30.82 Waiver when the current balance
exceeds the balance upon entering
repayment.
30.83 Waiver based on time since a loan
first entered repayment.
30.84 Waiver when a loan is eligible for
forgiveness based upon repayment plan.
30.85 Waiver when a loan is eligible for a
targeted forgiveness opportunity.
30.86 Waiver based upon Secretarial
actions.
30.87 Waiver following a closure prior to
Secretarial actions.
30.88 Waiver for closed Gainful
Employment programs with high debt-toearnings rates or low median earnings.
30.89 Severability.
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
27614
§ 30.80
debts.
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Waiver of Federal student loan
The Secretary may waive all or part of
any debts owed to the Department
arising under the Federal Family
Education Loan Program authorized
under title IV, part B, of the HEA, the
William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan
Program authorized under title IV, part
D, of the HEA, the Federal Perkins Loan
Program authorized under title IV, part
E, of the HEA, and the Health Education
Assistance Loan Program authorized by
sections 701–720 of the Public Health
Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 292–292o, under
the conditions included in, but not
limited to, §§ 30.81 through 30.88.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 30.81 Waiver when the current balance
exceeds the balance upon entering
repayment for borrowers on an IDR plan.
(a) Pursuant to the authority to waive
debt that the Secretary is unable to
collect in full under the standards
prescribed in 31 U.S.C. 3711(d), and
subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section, the Secretary may waive one
time the amount by which each of a
borrower’s loans has a total outstanding
balance that exceeds—
(1) The original principal balance of
that loan for loans disbursed before
January 1, 2005;
(2) The balance of that loan on the day
after the end of its grace period for loans
disbursed on or after January 1, 2005;
(3) The balance of a Federal or Direct
Parent and Graduate PLUS Loan the day
after it is fully disbursed; or
(4) The amounts determined under
paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this
section, as applicable, for all loans
repaid by a Federal Consolidation Loan
or a Direct Consolidation Loan.
(b) A borrower is eligible for the
waiver described in paragraph (a) of this
section if—
(1) The borrower is enrolled in an IDR
plan under §§ 682.215, 685.209, or
685.221 as of a date determined by the
Secretary; and
(2) The borrower’s adjusted gross
income, or other calculation of income
as shown on documentation of income
acceptable to the Secretary,
demonstrates that the borrower’s annual
income as calculated under § 685.209 is
either—
(i) Less than or equal to $120,000 if
the borrower files a Federal tax return
as single or married filing separately;
(ii) Less than or equal to $180,00 if the
borrower files a Federal tax return as a
head of household; or
(iii) Less than or equal to $240,000 if
the borrower is married and files a joint
Federal tax return or is a qualifying
surviving spouse.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
§ 30.82 Waiver when the current balance
exceeds the balance upon entering
repayment.
(a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this
section, the Secretary may waive one
time the lesser of $20,000 or the amount
by which each of a borrower’s loans has
a total outstanding balance that
exceeds—
(1) The original principal balance of
that loan for loans disbursed before
January 1, 2005;
(2) The balance of that loan on the day
after the end of its grace period for loans
disbursed on or after January 1, 2005;
(3) The balance of a Federal or Direct
Parent and Graduate PLUS Loan the day
after it is fully disbursed; or
(4) The amounts determined under
paragraphs (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this
section, as applicable, for loans repaid
by a Federal Consolidation Loan or a
Direct Consolidation Loan.
(b) A borrower who has received a
waiver under § 30.81 is not eligible for
a waiver under paragraph (a) of this
section.
§ 30.83 Waiver based on time since a loan
first entered repayment.
(a) The Secretary may waive the
outstanding balance of a loan for a
borrower—
(1) Who is repaying only loans
received for undergraduate study or a
Direct Consolidation Loan that repaid
only loans received for undergraduate
study if the loan first entered repayment
on or before July 1, 2005; or
(2) Who has loans other than loans
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section if the loan first entered
repayment on or before July 1, 2000.
(b) For the purpose of this section, a
loan enters repayment on—
(1) For a Federal Stafford Loan, a
Direct Subsidized Loan, or a Direct
Unsubsidized Loan, the day after the
initial grace period ends;
(2) For a Federal Parent and Graduate
PLUS Loan or a Direct Parent and
Graduate PLUS Loan, the day the loan
is fully disbursed;
(3) For a Federal Consolidation Loan
or Direct Consolidation Loan made
before July 1, 2023, the earliest day as
determined under paragraphs (c)(1) or
(2) of this section for loans that were
repaid by that consolidation loan; or
(4) For a Direct Consolidation Loan
made on or after July 1, 2023, the latest
day as determined under paragraphs
(c)(1) or (2) of this section for loans that
were repaid by that consolidation loan.
§ 30.84 Waiver when a loan is eligible for
forgiveness based upon repayment plan.
The Secretary may waive the entire
outstanding balance of a loan if the
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Secretary determines that a borrower is
not enrolled in, but otherwise meets the
eligibility requirements for forgiveness
under—
(a) An income-based repayment plan
under § 682.215 or § 685.221;
(b) An income-contingent repayment
plan under § 685.209; or
(c) An alternative repayment plan
under § 685.208(l).
§ 30.85 Waiver when a loan is eligible for
a targeted forgiveness opportunity.
(a) The Secretary may waive the entire
outstanding balance of a loan if the
Secretary determines that a borrower
has not applied or not successfully
applied for, but otherwise meets the
eligibility requirements for, any loan
discharge, cancellation, or forgiveness
opportunity under part 682 or 685.
(b) If the conditions for waiver in
paragraph (a) of this section are met but
the loan has been repaid by a Federal
Consolidation Loan or Direct
Consolidation Loan that has an
outstanding balance, the Secretary may
waive the portion of the outstanding
balance of the consolidation loan
attributable to such loan.
§ 30.86 Waiver based upon Secretarial
actions.
(a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this
section, the Secretary may waive the
entire outstanding balance of a loan
associated with attending an institution
or a program at an institution if the
Secretary or other authorized
Department official has issued a final
decision that terminated the institution
or program’s participation in the title IV,
HEA programs or denied the
institution’s request for recertification,
or the Secretary or other authorized
Department official has otherwise
determined that the institution or the
program in which the student was
enrolled is no longer eligible for its
students to receive assistance under the
title IV, HEA programs and that
decision, denial, or determination was
due, in whole or in part, to any of the
following circumstances:
(1) The program or institution has
failed to meet an accountability
standard based on student outcomes
established under the HEA or its
implementing regulations for
determining eligibility for participation
in the title IV, HEA programs.
(2) The program or institution has
failed to deliver sufficient financial
value to students, including in
situations where the institution or
program has engaged in substantial
misrepresentations, substantial
omissions, misconduct affecting student
eligibility, or other similar activities;
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
this paragraph applies to circumstances
when the institution or program has lost
accreditation at least in part due to such
activities.
(b) The waiver described in paragraph
(a) of this section is limited to loans that
were borrowed to attend that program or
institution during the period that
corresponds with the findings or
outcomes data that forms the basis for
the action described in paragraph (a) of
this section, unless the Secretary
determines that the use of a different
period is appropriate.
(c) If the conditions for waiver in
paragraph (a) of this section are met but
the loan has been repaid by a Federal
Consolidation Loan or Direct
Consolidation Loan that has an
outstanding balance, the Secretary may
waive the portion of the outstanding
balance of the consolidation loan
attributable to such loan.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 30.87 Waiver following a closure prior to
Secretarial actions.
(a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this
section, the Secretary may waive the
entire outstanding balance of a loan
associated with attending a program or
institution if the program or institution
has closed and the Secretary or other
authorized Department official has
determined that—
(1) Based on the most recent reliable
data for that program or institution, the
program or institution has not satisfied,
for at least one year, an accountability
standard based on student outcomes
established under the HEA or its
implementing regulations for
determining eligibility for participation
in the title IV, HEA programs; or
(2) The program or institution—
(i) Failed to deliver sufficient
financial value to students including in
situations where the institution or
program has engaged in substantial
misrepresentations, substantial
omissions, misconduct affecting student
eligibility, or other similar activities;
this paragraph applies to circumstances
when the institution or program has lost
accreditation at least in part due to such
activities; and
(ii) Is the subject of a program review,
investigation, or any other Department
action that remains unresolved at the
time of closure and that is based, in
whole or in part, on the conduct
described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this
section.
(b) The waiver described in paragraph
(a) of this section is limited to loans that
were borrowed to attend that program or
institution during the period that
corresponds with the findings or
outcomes data that forms the basis for
the action described in paragraph (a) of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
this section, unless the Secretary
determines that the use of a different
period is appropriate.
(c) If the conditions for waiver in
paragraph (a) of this section are met but
the loan has been repaid by a Federal
Consolidation Loan or Direct
Consolidation Loan that has an
outstanding balance, the Secretary may
waive the portion of the outstanding
balance of the consolidation loan
attributable to such loan.
§ 30.88 Waiver for closed Gainful
Employment programs with high debt-toearnings rates or low median earnings.
(a) The Secretary may waive the
outstanding balance of a loan received
by a borrower associated with
enrollment in a Gainful Employment
(GE) program as described in 20 U.S.C.
1002(b)(1)(A)(i) and (c)(1)(A) if—
(1) The program or institution closed;
(2) The Secretary makes the
determination that the program was not
a program that prepares students to
become a doctor of medicine or
osteopathy or a doctor of dental science;
and
(3) For the period in which the
borrower received loans for enrollment
in the program, the Secretary has
reliable and available data
demonstrating that, for students who
received title IV, HEA assistance—
(i)(A) The median annual loan
payment of graduates from the program
is greater than 20 percent of the median
annual earnings for graduates, minus
150 percent of the applicable Federal
Poverty Guideline for the year being
measured or the denominator of such
calculation is zero or negative; and
(B) The median annual loan payment
of graduates from the program is greater
than eight percent of the median annual
earnings for graduates of the program or
the denominator of such calculation is
zero; or
(ii) The median annual earnings of
graduates from the program are equal to
or less than the median annual earnings
for working adults aged 25–34, who
either worked during the year or
indicated they were unemployed (i.e.,
not employed but looking for and
available to work) when interviewed,
with only a high school diploma (or
recognized equivalent)—
(A) In the State in which the
institution is located; or
(B) Nationally, if fewer than 50
percent of the students in the program
are from the State where the institution
is located, or if the institution is a
foreign institution.
(b) In determining whether a program
meets the requirements under paragraph
(a) of this section, the Secretary—
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
27615
(1) Identifies a program using the
program’s six-digit CIP code as assigned
by the institution or determined by the
Secretary, in combination with the
institution’s six-digit Office of
Postsecondary Education ID (OPEID)
number and the program’s credential
level, unless the Secretary does not have
reliable and available data at the six
digit-level, in which case the Secretary
will use the four-digit CIP code;
(2) Calculates the annual loan
payment based upon the average of—
(i) The interest rate on Direct
Unsubsidized Loans for undergraduate
students for the three consecutive award
years ending in the latest completion
year for the students whose median debt
payment is being calculated for
graduates of undergraduate certificate
programs, post-baccalaureate certificate
programs, and associate degree
programs; or
(ii) The interest rate on Direct
Unsubsidized Loans for graduate
students for the three consecutive award
years ending in the latest completion
year for the students whose median debt
payment is being calculated for
graduates of graduate certificate
programs and master’s degree programs;
or
(iii) The interest rate on Direct
Unsubsidized Loans for undergraduate
students for the six consecutive award
years ending in the latest completion
year for the students whose median debt
payment is being calculated for
graduates of bachelor’s degree programs;
or
(iv) The interest rate on Direct
Unsubsidized Loans for graduate
students for the six consecutive award
years ending in the latest completion
year for the students whose median debt
payment is being calculated for
graduates of doctoral programs and first
professional degree programs; and
(3) Calculates the median annual
earnings of program graduates by
considering earnings in the third year
subsequent to graduation.
(c) The Secretary may also apply the
waiver described in paragraph (a) of this
section for loans received for enrollment
in a GE program at an institution—
(1) If the institution has since closed;
(2) Prior to the closure, the institution
received a majority of its title IV, HEA
funds from programs that met the
conditions described in paragraph (a)(3)
of this section; and
(3) The Secretary did not have data to
evaluate the program’s performance as
described in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section.
(d) If the conditions for waiver in
paragraph (a) or (c) of this section are
met but the loan has been repaid by a
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
27616
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Federal Consolidation Loan or Direct
Consolidation Loan that has an
outstanding balance, the Secretary may
waive the portion of the outstanding
balance of the consolidation loan
attributable to such loan.
§ 30.89
Severability.
If any provision of this subpart or its
application to any person, act, or
practice is held invalid, the remainder
of the subpart or the application of its
provisions to any other person, act, or
practice will not be affected thereby.
PART 682—FEDERAL FAMILY
EDUCATION LOAN (FFEL) PROGRAM
17. The authority citation for part 682
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1071–1087–4, unless
otherwise noted.
Section 682.410 also issued under 20
U.S.C. 1078, 1078–1, 1078–2, 1078–3, 1080a,
1082, 1087, 1091a, and 1099.
■
20. Add § 682.403 to read as follows:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 682.403
debt.
Waiver of FFEL Program loan
(a) General. (1) This section specifies
the rules and procedures under which—
(i) The Secretary determines that a
FFEL Program loan qualifies for a
waiver of all or a portion of the
outstanding balance and notifies the
lender of any such determination;
(ii) The lender submits a waiver claim
to the applicable guaranty agency;
(iii) The guaranty agency pays the
claim, is reimbursed by the Secretary,
and assigns the loan to the Secretary;
and
(iv) The Secretary grants the waiver.
(2) For the purposes of this section,
references to—
(i) The lender includes the guaranty
agency if the guaranty agency is the
holder of the loan at the time the
Secretary determines that the loan
qualifies for a waiver, except that the
waiver claim filing requirements
applicable to the lender do not apply to
the guaranty agency; and
(ii) The guaranty agency means the
guaranty agency that guarantees the
loan.
(b) Determination of qualification for
a waiver by the Secretary. The Secretary
may waive the borrower’s obligation to
repay up to the entire outstanding
balance on an FFEL Program loan if the
loan qualifies for a waiver under one of
the following conditions:
(1) First entered repayment on or
before July 1, 2000.
(i) The Secretary may waive the
outstanding balance of a loan if the loan
first entered repayment on or before July
1, 2000.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
(ii) For the purpose of this section, a
loan enters repayment on—
(A) For a Federal Stafford Loan, the
day after the initial grace period ends;
(B) For a Federal PLUS Loan, the day
the loan is fully disbursed; or
(C) For a Federal Consolidation Loan,
the earliest day as determined under
paragraph (b) (1) (ii)(A) and (B) of this
section for any loan that was repaid by
that consolidation loan.
(2) Closed school discharge. The
Secretary may waive the borrower’s
obligation to repay up to the entire
outstanding balance of a loan where the
Secretary determines that a borrower
has not applied or not successfully
applied for, but otherwise meets the
eligibility requirements for, a closed
school discharge on that loan under
§ 682.402(d).
(3) Cohort default rate. For loans
received for attendance at an institution
that lost its eligibility to participate in
any title IV, HEA program because of its
cohort default rate, as defined in 20
U.S.C. 1085(m), the Secretary may
waive the outstanding balance of the
loan, provided that the borrower was
included in the cohort whose debt was
used to calculate the cohort default rate
or rates that were the basis for the loss
of eligibility.
(c) Notification. If the Secretary
determines that a loan qualifies for a
waiver under paragraph (b) of this
section, the Secretary provides notice to
the lender that the lender must—
(1) Submit a waiver claim to the
applicable guaranty agency; and
(2) Suspend collection activity, or
maintain a suspension of collection
activity, on the borrower’s FFEL
Program loan.
(d) Claim procedures. (1) The
guaranty agency must establish and
enforce standards and procedures for
the timely filing by lenders of waiver
claims.
(2) The lender must submit a claim for
the full outstanding balance of the loan
to the guaranty agency, within 75 days
of the date the lender received the
notification from the Secretary
described in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(3) The lender must provide the
guaranty agency with the following
documentation when filing a waiver
claim:
(i) An original or a true and exact
copy of the promissory note.
(ii) The notification described in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(4) If the lender is not in possession
of an original or true and exact copy of
the promissory note, the lender may
submit alternative documentation
acceptable to the Secretary, such as
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
documentation of a borrower’s
affirmation of the debt.
(5) The guaranty agency must review
the waiver claim and determine whether
the claim meets the requirements of
paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4) of this
section.
(6) If the guaranty agency determines
the waiver claim meets the requirements
of paragraph (d)(3) and (d)(4) of this
section, the guaranty agency must pay
the claim within 30 days of the date the
claim was received by the guaranty
agency.
(7) If the lender receives any
payments on the loan from or on behalf
of the borrower during the suspension
of collection activity or after receiving a
claim payment from the guaranty
agency, the lender must promptly return
the payments to the sender.
(8) The Secretary reimburses the
guaranty agency for the full amount of
a claim paid to the lender after the
agency pays the claim to the lender.
(9) The guaranty agency must assign
the loan to the Secretary within 75 days
of—
(i) The date the guaranty agency pays
the claim and receives the
reimbursement payment; or
(ii) The date the guaranty agency
receives the notification described in
paragraph (c) of this section if the
guaranty agency is the lender.
(10) After the guaranty agency assigns
the loan, the Secretary may waive the
borrower’s obligation to repay up to the
entire outstanding balance of the loan.
(11) After the Secretary grants the
waiver, the Secretary notifies the
borrower, the lender, and the guaranty
agency that the borrower’s obligation to
repay the debt or a portion of the debt,
has been waived.
(e) Payments received during the
suspension of collection activity or after
the Secretary’s payment of a waiver
claim.
(1) If the guaranty agency receives any
payments from or on behalf of the
borrower on a loan during the
suspension of collection activity or after
the loan has been assigned to the
Secretary in accordance with paragraph
(d) of this section, the guaranty agency
must promptly return these payments to
the sender. At the same time that the
agency returns the payments, it must
notify the borrower that there is no
obligation to make payments on the loan
after the Secretary has granted a waiver
unless—
(i) The borrower received a partial
waiver of the outstanding balance of the
loan; or
(ii) The Secretary directs the borrower
otherwise.
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
(2) If the guaranty agency has returned
a payment to the borrower, or the
borrower’s representative, with the
notice described in paragraph (e)(1) of
this section, and the borrower (or
representative) continues to send
payments to the guaranty agency, the
agency must remit all of those payments
to the Secretary.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:32 Apr 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
(3) If the Secretary receives any
payments from or on behalf of the
borrower on the loan after the Secretary
waives the entire outstanding balance of
a loan, the Secretary returns the
payments to the sender.
(f) If the conditions for waiver in
paragraph (b) of this section are met but
the loan has been repaid by a Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
27617
Consolidation Loan that has an
outstanding balance, the Secretary may
waive the portion of the outstanding
balance of the consolidation loan
attributable to such loan once the loan
has been assigned to the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024–07726 Filed 4–16–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
E:\FR\FM\17APP3.SGM
17APP3
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 17, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27564-27617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-07726]
[[Page 27563]]
Vol. 89
Wednesday,
No. 75
April 17, 2024
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Parts 30 and 682
Student Debt Relief for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program
(Direct Loans), the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, the
Federal Perkins Loan (Perkins) Program, and the Health Education
Assistance Loan (HEAL) Program; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 27564]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 30 and 682
[Docket ID ED-2023-OPE-0123]
RIN 1840-AD93
Student Debt Relief for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan
Program (Direct Loans), the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL)
Program, the Federal Perkins Loan (Perkins) Program, and the Health
Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) Program
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations related to the
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) to provide for the
waiver of certain student loan debts.
In this NPRM, the Department proposes regulations, in accordance
with the Secretary's authority to waive repayment of a loan provided by
the HEA, to provide targeted debt relief as part of efforts to address
the burden of student loan debt. The proposed regulations would modify
the Department's existing debt collection regulations to provide
greater specificity regarding certain non-exhaustive situations in
which the Secretary may exercise discretion to waive all or part of any
debts owed to the Department.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 17, 2024.
ADDRESSES: For more information regarding submittal of comments, please
see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Comments must be submitted via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at Regulations.gov. However, if you require
an accommodation or cannot otherwise submit your comments via
Regulations.gov, please contact Rene Tiongquico at (202) 453-7513 or by
email at [email protected].
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Please go to www.regulations.gov to
submit your comments electronically. Information on using
Regulations.gov, including instructions for finding a rule on the site
and submitting comments, is available on the site under ``FAQ.'' In
accordance with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act
of 2023 (Pub. L. 118-9), a summary of not more than 100 words in length
of the proposed rule, in plain language, is posted on Regulations.gov
in the rulemaking docket: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ED-2023-OPE-0123.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to generally make comments
received from members of the public available for public viewing on the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at Regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters
should include in their comments only information about themselves that
they wish to make publicly available. Commenters should not include in
their comments any information that identifies other individuals or
that permits readers to identify other individuals. If, for example,
your comment describes an experience of someone other than yourself,
please do not identify that individual or include information that
would allow readers to identify that individual. The Department may not
make comments that contain personally identifiable information (PII)
about someone other than the commenter publicly available on
Regulations.gov for privacy reasons. This may include comments where
the commenter refers to a third-party individual without using their
name if the Department determines that the comment provides enough
detail that could allow one or more readers to link the information to
the third-party individual. If your comment refers to a third-party
individual, please refer to the third-party individual anonymously to
reduce the chance that information in your comment could be linked to
the third party. For example, ``a former student with a graduate level
degree'' does not provide information that identifies a third-party
individual as opposed to ``my sister, Jane Doe, had this experience
while attending University X,'' which does provide enough information
to identify a specific third-party individual. For privacy reasons, the
Department reserves the right to not make available on Regulations.gov
any information in comments that identifies other individuals, includes
information that would allow readers to identify other individuals, or
includes threats of harm to another person or to oneself.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information related to
general waivers and length of time in repayment, contact Richard Blasen
at (202) 987-0315 or by email at [email protected]. For further
information related to current balances that exceed original amounts
borrowed, contact Bruce Honer at (202) 987-0750 or by email at
[email protected]. For further information related to waiver
eligibility based on repayment plan and targeted debt relief, contact
Vanessa Freeman at (202) 987-1336 or by email at
[email protected]. For further information related to secretarial
actions and Gainful Employment programs with low financial value,
contact Rene Tiongquico at (202) 453-7513 or by email at
[email protected]. For further information related to FFEL Program
loans, contact Brian Smith at (202) 987-0385 or by email at
[email protected].
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Since 1980, the total cost to receive a four-year postsecondary
credential has nearly tripled, even after accounting for inflation.\1\
Pell Grants once covered nearly 80 percent of the cost of a four-year
public college degree for students from low- and middle-income
families, but now they only cover a third of those costs.\2\ This price
growth has dramatically increased the need for students to secure
student loans, particularly Federal student loans from the Department,
to cover their educational costs. The gap between prices and income
means that many students from low- and middle-income families have to
borrow Federal student loans in addition to grants and out-of-pocket
spending so they can earn a postsecondary credential. These trends have
resulted in cumulative Federal loan debt of $1.6 trillion and rising
for more than 43 million borrowers, which has placed a significant
financial burden upon middle-income borrowers and has had an even more
devastating impact on vulnerable low-income borrowers.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Trends in College Pricing 2023: Data in Excel. Table CP-2.
Available at https://research.collegeboard.org/trends/college-pricing.
\2\ https://www.cbpp.org/research/pell-grants-a-key-tool-for-expanding-college-access-and-economic-opportunity-need.
\3\ https://studentaid.gov/data-center/student/portfolio;
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/student-debt-weighed-heavily-on-millions-even-before-pandemic.html; https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/frbp/assets/consumer-finance/reports/cfi-sl-1-payments-resumption.pdf; https://www.aarp.org/money/credit-loans-debt/info-2021/student-debt-crisis-for-older-americans.html; https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-equity-insights/gender-racial-disparities-student-loan-debt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After convening the Student Loan Debt Relief negotiated rulemaking
committee (Committee) and reaching consensus on various issues
discussed in this NPRM, the Department proposes regulations, in
accordance with the Secretary's authority to waive repayment of a loan
provided by section 432(a) of the HEA, to provide debt relief targeted
to address certain specific circumstances as part of a
[[Page 27565]]
comprehensive effort to address the burden of Federal student loan
debt. The proposed regulations would modify the Department's existing
debt collection regulations to provide greater specificity regarding
the Secretary's discretion to waive Federal student loan debt and
specify the Secretary's authority to waive all or part of any debts
owed to the Department based on a number of different circumstances,
such as growth in a borrower's loan balance beyond what was owed upon
entering repayment, the amount of time since the loan first entered
repayment, whether the borrower meets certain criteria for loan
forgiveness or discharge under existing authority, and whether a loan
was obtained to attend an institution or program that was subject to
secretarial actions, that closed prior to secretarial actions, or was
associated with closed Gainful Employment programs with high debt-to-
earnings rates or low median earnings.
Summary of Select Provisions of This Regulatory Action
The Department proposes to amend subparts A, C, E, and F of 34 CFR
part 30 and to add a new subpart G. The Department also proposes to
amend part 682 by adding a new Sec. 682.403.
These proposed regulations, in accordance with the HEA, would
specify the Secretary's discretionary authority to waive repayment of
the following amounts:
The full amount by which the current outstanding balance
on a loan exceeds the amount owed when the loan entered repayment for
loans being repaid on any Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plan if the
borrower's income is at or below $120,000 if the borrower's filing
status is single or married filing separately, $180,000 if a borrower
files as head of household, or $240,000 if the borrower is married and
files a joint Federal tax return or the borrower files as a qualifying
surviving spouse (Sec. 30.81).
Up to $20,000 or the amount by which the current
outstanding balance on a borrower's loan exceeds the balance owed upon
entering repayment (Sec. 30.82).
The outstanding balance of a loan taken out to pay for the
borrower's undergraduate education, or a Federal Consolidation Loan or
a Direct Consolidation Loan that only repaid loans received for a
borrower's undergraduate education, that first entered repayment on or
before July 1, 2005 (Sec. 30.83).
The outstanding balance of loans that first entered
repayment on or before July 1, 2000, if the borrower has any loans
obtained for study other than undergraduate study (Sec. 30.83).
The outstanding balance of a loan for borrowers who would
be otherwise eligible for forgiveness under an IDR plan or an
alternative repayment plan but who are not currently enrolled in such a
plan (Sec. 30.84).
The outstanding balance of a loan for borrowers determined
to be otherwise eligible for loan discharge, cancellation, or
forgiveness, but who did not successfully apply (Sec. 30.85).
The outstanding balance of a loan obtained to pay the cost
of attending an institution or program where the Secretary or other
authorized Department official has issued a final decision, denial of
recertification, or determination that terminates or otherwise ends the
institution's or program's title IV eligibility due at least in part to
the institution's or program's failure to meet required accountability
standards based on student outcomes or to its failure to provide
sufficient financial value to students (Sec. 30.86).
The outstanding balance of a loan obtained to pay the cost
of attending an institution or program that closed and the Secretary or
other Department official has determined the institution or program
failed, for at least one year, to meet an accountability standard based
on student outcomes, or failed to deliver sufficient financial value to
students and there was a pending program review, investigation, or
other Department action at the time of closure (Sec. 30.87).
The outstanding balance of a loan that is associated with
enrollment in a Gainful Employment (GE) program that has closed and
prior to closure had high debt-to-earnings rates or low median earnings
rates (Sec. 30.88).
In the case of FFEL Program loans held by a private loan
holder or a guaranty agency, the outstanding balance of a FFEL Program
loan when a loan first entered into repayment on or before July 1,
2000; when the borrower is otherwise eligible for, but has not
successfully applied for, a closed school discharge; or when the
borrower attended an institution that lost its title IV eligibility due
to a high cohort default rate (CDR), if the borrower was included in
the cohort whose debt was used to calculate the CDR or rates that were
the basis for the institution's loss of eligibility (Sec. 682.403).
Costs and Benefits: As further detailed in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA), the proposed regulations would specify the Secretary's
authority to grant waivers that would have significant effects on
borrowers, the Department, and taxpayers. For borrowers for whom the
Secretary chooses to exercise his authority, the draft rules would
provide significant benefits by waiving all or a portion of their
repayment obligations. In cases where the Secretary decides to waive
the entire outstanding balance of a loan, borrowers receiving such
waivers would benefit from no longer having to repay their debt and no
longer being at risk of delinquency or default. The debts that could be
waived in their entirety under this proposed NPRM have the following
characteristics: they are generally older; otherwise eligible for
forgiveness, but the borrower has not currently enrolled in or
successfully applied to receive relief; or were taken out to attend
programs or institutions that failed to provide sufficient financial
value as indicated by certain outcomes and conditions. Borrowers who
may receive a waiver of some of their loan balances would benefit by
seeing their total outstanding balance reduced, which would help with
their ability to repay their loans in full in a reasonable period of
time.
The Department would also benefit if the Secretary chose to
exercise his discretion to issue waivers proposed in these draft rules.
These benefits would largely come from no longer incurring costs to
service or collect on loans that are unlikely to be otherwise repaid in
full in a reasonable period.
The costs in this rule would largely come from the transfers
between the Department and borrowers that would occur if the Secretary
chose to use his discretion to issue waivers. There would also be some
administrative costs borne by the Department to implement the proposed
regulations. As detailed in Table 4.1 of the RIA, the net budget
impacts across all loan cohorts through 2034 for each of the proposed
changes are estimated to be as follows:
$13.8 billion for the provision related to time since the
loan first entered repayment (Sec. 30.83).
$8.6 billion for the provision related to borrowers who
are eligible for forgiveness based upon a repayment plan (Sec. 30.84).
$15 million for the provision related to borrowers who
took out loans during cohorts that caused a school to lose access to
aid due to high cohort default rates (CDRs) as described in Sec.
30.86.
$7.6 billion for the provision related to borrowers who
are eligible for a closed school loan discharge but have not
successfully applied (Sec. 30.85).
$27.2 billion for the provision related to borrowers who
attended a gainful employment program that lost access to aid or closed
(Sec. Sec. 30.86 through 30.88).
[[Page 27566]]
$11.0 billion for the provision related to borrowers whose
current balance exceeds the amount owed upon entering repayment and are
on IDR plan with income below certain thresholds (Sec. 30.81).
$62.1 billion for the provision related to borrowers whose
current balance exceeds the amount owed upon entering repayment (Sec.
30.82).
$17.1 billion for the provisions related to borrowers with
commercial FFEL loans that first entered repayment 25 years ago; who
are eligible for a closed school discharge but have not applied; or who
received loans to attend a school that lost access to aid due to high
CDRs (682.403).
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
these proposed regulations. For your comments to have maximum effect in
developing the final regulations, we urge you to clearly identify the
specific section or sections of the proposed regulations that each of
your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in the same order
as the proposed regulations. The Department will not accept comments
submitted after the comment period closes. Please submit your comments
only once so that we do not receive duplicate copies.
The following tips are meant to help you prepare your comments and
provide a basis for the Department to respond to issues raised in your
comments in the notice of final regulations (NFR):
Be concise but support your claims.
Explain your views as clearly as possible and avoid using
profanity.
Refer to specific sections and subsections of the proposed
regulations throughout your comments, particularly in any headings that
are used to organize your submission.
Explain why you agree or disagree with the proposed
regulatory text and support these reasons with data-driven evidence,
including the depth and breadth of your personal or professional
experiences.
Where you disagree with the proposed regulatory text,
suggest alternatives, including regulatory language, and your rationale
for the alternative suggestion.
Do not include personally identifiable information (PII)
such as Social Security numbers or loan account numbers for yourself or
for others in your submission. Should you include any PII in your
comment, such information may be posted publicly.
Do not include any information that directly identifies or
could identify other individuals or that permits readers to identify
other individuals. Your comment may not be posted publicly if it
includes PII about other individuals.
Mass Writing Campaigns: In instances where individual submissions
appear to be duplicates or near duplicates of comments prepared as part
of a writing campaign, the Department will post one representative
sample comment along with the total comment count for that campaign to
Regulations.gov. The Department will consider these comments along with
all other comments received.
In instances where individual submissions are bundled together
(submitted as a single document or packaged together), the Department
will post all of the substantive comments included in the submissions
along with the total comment count for that document or package to
Regulations.gov. A well-supported comment is often more informative to
the agency than multiple form letters.
Public Comments: The Department invites you to submit comments on
all aspects of the proposed regulatory language specified in this NPRM
in Sec. Sec. 30.1, 30.9, 30.20, 30.23, 30.25, 30.27, 30.29, 30.30,
30.33, 30.62, 30.70, 30.80-30.89, and 682.403, the Regulatory Impact
Analysis, and Paperwork Reduction Act sections.
The Department may, at its discretion, decide not to post or to
withdraw certain comments and other materials that are computer-
generated. Comments containing the promotion of commercial services or
products and spam will be removed.
We may not address comments outside of the scope of these proposed
regulations in the NFR. Generally, comments that are outside of the
scope of these proposed regulations are comments that do not discuss
the content or impact of the proposed regulations or the Department's
evidence or reasons for the proposed regulations, which includes any
comments related to the Department's negotiated rulemaking for
borrowers experiencing hardship.
Comments that are submitted after the comment period closes will
not be posted to Regulations.gov or addressed in the NFR.
Comments containing personal threats will not be posted to
Regulations.gov and may be referred to the appropriate authorities.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 14094 and their overall
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these
proposed regulations. Please let us know of any further ways we could
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving
the effective and efficient administration of the Department's programs
and activities.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect public
comments about these proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary
aid, please contact the Information Technology Accessibility Program
Help Desk at [email protected] to help facilitate.
Background
Section 432(a) of the HEA describes the legal powers and
responsibilities of the Secretary of Education that are relevant to
this rulemaking. In particular, section 432(a)(6) provides that, ``in
the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers and
duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary may enforce, pay,
compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand,
however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.''
These provisions apply to the FFEL, Direct Loan \4\ and HEAL
programs.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Section 432(a)(6) is in, and explicitly applies to, Part B,
which establishes the FFEL program. In creating the Direct Loan
program, Congress established parity between the FFEL and Direct
Loan program, providing that Federal Direct Loans ``have the same
terms, conditions, and benefits as loans made to borrowers'' under
the FFEL program. 20 U.S.C. 1087a(b)(2). See Sweet v. Cardona, 641
F.Supp.3d 814, 823-825 (ND Cal., 2022); Weingarten v. DOE, 468
F.Supp.3d 322, 328 (D.D.C. 2020); McCain v. US, 2011 WL 2469828
(Ct.Cl. 2011). The legislative history of the Direct Loan program
shows that 20 U.S.C. 1087a(b)(2) is broadly read to apply the
provisions of the FFEL statutory provisions to Direct Loan except as
provided by statute or inconsistent with the different structure of
the Direct Loan program. For example, the Direct Loan program
provides total and permanent disability discharges, closed school
loan discharges and forbearances to borrowers although none of those
are mentioned in the Direct Loan statutory provisions.
\5\ When transferring the HEAL loan program to the Department,
Congress explicitly stated that the Secretary's powers with respect
to collecting FFEL loans extend to HEAL loans. See Division H, title
V, section 525(d) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub.
L. 113-76) (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014). The Secretary's
waiver authority under section 432(a)(6) of the HEA extends to HEAL
loans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's statutory waiver authority dates back to the
enactment of
[[Page 27567]]
the Higher Education Act in 1965.\6\ The Department has historically
viewed its waiver authority as permitting the Secretary to waive the
Department's right to require repayment of a debt \7\ when doing so
advances the goals of the title IV programs and functions, while also
aligning with the HEA's overall statutory parameters and principles.
Having such bounded flexibility is critical for the Department's
administration of the comprehensive and complex student loan programs
wherein there are unforeseen challenges that arise and, absent waiver,
such challenges could interfere with the Secretary's ability to
effectively and efficiently administer the title IV programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Public Law 89-29, 79 Stat. 1246 (Nov. 8, 1965).
\7\ Waiving the Department's right to repayment of all or part
of a debt correspondingly releases the borrower of further liability
on account of all or part of that debt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's waiver authority operates within the context of
the HEA's goals and also the principles that govern waiver more
broadly. Some agencies that exercise waiver authority consider whether
collection of debts would be against equity and good conscience or the
best interest of the United States, thereby implicating general
principles of government debt collection. Agencies have also
articulated numerous factors that may weigh in favor of waiving an
individual's debt, including when collection would defeat the purpose
of the benefit program or impose financial hardship, among other
considerations.
On June 30, 2023, the Department announced that it would conduct a
negotiated rulemaking process to specify the Secretary's use of the
authority to waive loan debts under section 432(a) of the HEA. This
NPRM reflects regulations discussed during that process and would allow
the Secretary to address significant challenges identified with student
loan repayment that implicate considerations of equity and fairness, as
well as a borrower's inability to repay their loans in full within a
reasonable period or circumstances where the costs of enforcing the
debt exceed the expected benefits of continued collection. In
particular, this NPRM focuses on issues related to circumstances--
When borrowers' balances have grown beyond what they
originally owed at the start of repayment.
When loans first entered repayment at least two decades
ago.
When a borrower is eligible for forgiveness or a discharge
opportunity but has not successfully applied for such relief or
enrolled in the repayment plan that would provide that forgiveness or
discharge opportunity.
When a borrower received loans for attendance in a program
or at an institution that has since lost access to Federal aid because
it failed to meet required student outcomes standards, was subject to
an action by the Secretary due to failing to provide sufficient
financial value or closed after failing required student outcomes
metrics or the initiation of a Secretarial action process.
These proposed provisions account for particular challenges facing
individual borrowers, while also recognizing that many borrowers are
similarly situated in experiencing such circumstances. The Department
has a longstanding view and practice of providing appropriate relief
when it identifies specific circumstances that warrant relief and those
circumstances affect multiple borrowers. Such relief, on an automated
or individual basis, is appropriate when such individuals'
circumstances share the features relevant for determining relief. This
approach comports with the HEA's statutory requirements and can also
help to improve administrative efficiency and provide consistency
across borrowers.
Public Participation
On July 6, 2023, the Department published a notice in the Federal
Register (88 FR 43069) announcing our intent to establish a negotiated
rulemaking committee to prepare proposed regulations pertaining to the
Secretary's authority under section 432(a) of the HEA, which relates to
the modification, waiver, or compromise of loans.
On July 18, 2023, the Department held a virtual public hearing at
which individuals and representatives of interested organizations
provided advice and recommendations relating to the topic of proposed
regulations on the modification, waiver, or compromise of loans. The
Department has significantly engaged the public in developing this
NPRM, including through review of oral comments made by the public
during the public hearing and written comments submitted between July
6, 2023, and July 20, 2023. You may view the written comments submitted
in response to the July 6, 2023, Federal Register notice on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at Regulations.gov, within docket ID ED-2023-OPE-
0123. Instructions for finding comments are also available on the site
under ``FAQ.'' Transcripts of the public hearings may be accessed at
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2023/.
The Department also held three negotiated rulemaking sessions of
two days each. During each daily negotiated rulemaking session, we
provided an opportunity for public comment and expanded that time to
one hour for the second and third sessions. The Department held a
fourth two-day session in February 2024 to discuss the separate issue
of possible hardship criteria for discharge and the public had an
opportunity to comment on the first day of that session. Additionally,
non-Federal negotiators shared feedback from their stakeholders with
the negotiating committee.
Negotiated Rulemaking
Section 492 of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. 1098a, requires the Secretary to
obtain public involvement in the development of proposed regulations
affecting programs authorized by title IV of the HEA. After obtaining
extensive input and recommendations from the public, including
individuals and representatives of groups involved in the title IV, HEA
programs, the Secretary, in most cases, must engage in the negotiated
rulemaking process before publishing proposed regulations in the
Federal Register. If negotiators reach consensus on the proposed
regulations, the Department agrees to publish without substantive
alteration a defined group of regulations on which the negotiators
reached consensus--unless the Secretary reopens the process or provides
a written explanation to the participants stating why the Secretary has
decided to depart from the agreement reached during negotiations.
Further information on the negotiated rulemaking process can be found
at: https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2023/.
On August 31, 2023, the Department published a notice in the
Federal Register \8\ announcing its intention to establish the
Committee to prepare proposed regulations for the title IV, HEA
programs. The notice set forth a schedule for Committee meetings and
requested nominations for individual negotiators to serve on the
negotiating committee. In the notice, we announced the topics that the
Committee would address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 88 FR 60163 (August 31, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee included the following members, representing their
respective constituencies:
Civil Rights Organizations: Wisdom Cole, NAACP, and India
Heckstall (alternate), Center for Law and Social Policy.
[[Page 27568]]
Legal Assistance Organizations that Represent Students or
Borrowers: Kyra Taylor, National Consumer Law Center, and Scott
Waterman (alternate), Student Loan Committee of the National
Association of Chapter 13 Trustees.
State Officials, including State higher education
executive officers, State authorizing agencies, and State regulators of
institutions of higher education: Lane Thompson, Oregon DCBS--Division
of Financial Regulation, and Amber Gallup (alternate), New Mexico
Higher Education Department.
State Attorneys General: Yael Shavit, Office of the
Massachusetts Attorney General, and Josh Divine (alternate), Missouri
Attorney General's Office who withdrew from the committee during the
third session.
Public Institutions of Higher Education, Including Two-
Year and Four-Year Institutions: Melissa Kunes, The Pennsylvania State
University, and J.D. LaRock (alternate), North Shore Community College.
Private Nonprofit Institutions of Higher Education:
Angelika Williams, University of San Francisco, and Susan Teerink
(alternate), Marquette University.
Proprietary Institutions: Kathleen Dwyer, Galen College of
Nursing, and Belen Gonzalez (alternate), Mech-Tech College.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal
Colleges and Universities, and Minority Serving Institutions
(institutions of higher education eligible to receive Federal
assistance under title III, parts A and F, and title V of the HEA):
Sandra Boham, Salish Kootenai College, and Carol Peterson (alternate),
Langston University.
Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Lenders, Servicers,
or Guaranty Agencies: Scott Buchanan, Student Loan Servicing Alliance,
and Benjamin Lee (alternate), Ascendium Education Solutions, Inc.
Student Loan Borrowers Who Attended Programs of Two Years
or Less: Ashley Pizzuti, San Joaquin Delta College, and David Ramirez
(alternate), Pasadena City College.
Student Loan Borrowers Who Attended Four-Year Programs:
Sherrie Gammage, The University of New Orleans, and Sarah Christa Butts
(alternate), University of Maryland.
Student Loan Borrowers Who Attended Graduate Programs:
Richard Haase, State University of New York at Stony Brook, and Dr.
Jalil Bishop (alternate), University of California, Los Angeles.
Currently Enrolled Postsecondary Education Students: Jada
Sanford, Stephen F. Austin University, and Jordan Nellums (alternate),
University of Texas.
Consumer Advocacy Organizations: Jessica Ranucci, New York
Legal Assistance Group, and Ed Boltz (alternate), Law Offices of John
T. Orcutt, P.C.
Individuals with Disabilities or Organizations
Representing Them: John Whitelaw, Community Legal Aid Society Inc., and
Waukecha Wilkerson (alternate), Sacramento State University.
U.S. Military Service Members, Veterans, or Groups
Representing Them: Vincent Andrews, Veteran. Originally the alternate,
Mr. Andrews became the primary negotiator for this constituency group
after Michael Jones withdrew from the Committee.
Federal Negotiator: Tamy Abernathy, U.S. Department of
Education.
At its first meeting, the Committee reached agreement on its
protocols and proposed agenda. The protocols provided, among other
things, that the Committee would operate by consensus. The protocols
defined consensus as no dissent by any negotiator of the Committee for
the committee to be considered to have reached agreement and noted that
consensus votes would be taken on each separate part of the proposed
rules.
The Committee reviewed and discussed the Department's drafts of
regulatory language and alternative language and suggestions proposed
by negotiators.
At its third meeting in December 2023, the Committee reached
consensus on proposed regulations addressing the Secretary's authority
to waive loan debts--when a loan is eligible for forgiveness based upon
repayment plan but the borrower is not currently enrolled in such plan;
based upon Secretarial actions; following a closure prior to
Secretarial actions; or obtained for attendance in closed GE programs
with high debt-to-earnings rates or low median earnings. In addition,
the Committee reached consensus on two provisions for waivers that
would apply only to FFEL Program loans held by a loan holder or
guaranty agency: Those based on a determination that a borrower has not
successfully applied for a closed school discharge but otherwise meets
the eligibility requirements for such a discharge, and cases where a
borrower received a loan for attendance at an institution that lost
title IV eligibility due to high CDRs.
This NPRM includes proposed regulations on these consensus items,
identified in the summary of proposed regulations section, as well as
the remaining items on the Committee's agenda, summarized generally
above. The Department convened a fourth session of the negotiating
committee on February 22 and 23, 2024, focused on discussing proposed
regulations related to possible waivers for borrowers facing hardship.
Proposed regulations for waivers for hardship are not included in this
NPRM.
For more information on the negotiated rulemaking sessions,
including the work of the Subcommittee, please visit: https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2023/.
Summary of Proposed Changes
These proposed regulations would--
Modify Sec. Sec. 30.70(a)(1) and 30.70(c)(1) to specify
that, when compromising a debt or when terminating or suspending
collection of a debt, the Secretary may use the Federal Claims
Collection Standards (FCCS).
Add Sec. 30.80 specifying the Secretary's authority to
waive all or part of any debts owed to the Department, including, but
not limited to, waivers under Sec. Sec. 30.81 through 30.88.
Add Sec. 30.81 specifying the Secretary's authority to
provide a one-time waiver of the amount by which the borrower's current
loan has an outstanding principal balance exceeding the amount owed
when the loan first entered repayment if they are enrolled in an IDR
plan and their income is less than or equal to $120,000 if the
borrower's filing status is single or married filing separately;
$180,000 if the borrower's filing status is head of household; or
$240,000 if their tax filing status is married filing jointly or
qualifying surviving spouse.
Add Sec. 30.82 specifying the Secretary's authority to
provide a one-time waiver of the lesser of $20,000 or the amount by
which a borrower's current loan balance exceeds the balance owed when
the borrower entered repayment.
Add Sec. 30.83 specifying the Secretary's authority to
waive the outstanding balance when a borrower who only has student
loans for the borrower's undergraduate studies first entered repayment
on or before July 1, 2005 (20 years) or on or before July 1, 2000 (25
years) when a borrower has student loans other than loans for the
borrower's undergraduate studies.
Add Sec. 30.84 specifying the Secretary's authority to
waive the outstanding balance of a loan when a borrower is not
currently enrolled in an
[[Page 27569]]
IDR plan, but otherwise meets the criteria for forgiveness under an IDR
plan.
Add Sec. 30.85 specifying the Secretary's authority to
waive the outstanding balance of a loan when a borrower has not applied
for, or not successfully applied for, any loan discharge, cancellation,
or forgiveness opportunity under parts 682 or 685, but otherwise meets
the eligibility criteria for discharge, cancellation, or forgiveness.
Add Sec. 30.86 specifying the Secretary's authority to
waive the outstanding balance of a loan obtained to attend an
institution or program where the Secretary or other authorized
Department official has issued a final decision, denial of
recertification, or determination that terminates or otherwise ends its
title IV eligibility due at least in part to the institution's or
program's failure to meet required accountability standards based on
student outcomes or to its failure to provide sufficient financial
value to students.
Add Sec. 30.87 specifying the Secretary's authority to
waive the outstanding balance of a loan obtained to attend a program or
an institution that closed and the Secretary has determined the
institution or program has not met for at least one year an
accountability standard based on student outcomes; or failed to provide
sufficient financial value to students and was subject to a program
review, investigation, or any other Department action that remained
unresolved at the time of closure.
Add Sec. 30.88 specifying the Secretary's authority to
waive the outstanding balance of a loan received by a borrower
associated with enrollment in a GE program that has closed and prior to
closure either had a high debt-to-earning rate or low median earnings,
or was at a GE program where the Department did not produce debt-to-
earnings and earnings premium measures but the institution closed and
prior to the closure received a majority of funds from programs with
high debt-to-earnings or low median earnings.
Add Sec. 682.403(a) outlining the procedures under which
the Secretary determines that a FFEL Program loan held by a lender or
guaranty agency qualifies for a waiver, the waiver claim is processed,
and the Secretary grants the waiver.
Add Sec. 682.403(b)(1) specifying the Secretary's
authority to waive the outstanding balance of a FFEL Program loan if
the loan first entered repayment in 2000 or earlier.
Add Sec. 682.403(b)(2) specifying the Secretary's
authority to waive the outstanding balance of a FFEL Program loan if
the borrower has not applied for, or not successfully applied for, but
otherwise meets the eligibility requirements for a closed school
discharge.
Add Sec. 682.403(b)(3) specifying the Secretary's
authority to waive the outstanding balance of a FFEL Program loan if
the loan was received for attendance at an institution that lost its
eligibility to participate in a title IV, HEA program because of its
high CDRs.
Add Sec. Sec. 682.403(c), 682.403(d), and 682.403(e)
describing the waiver claim filing process for a lender, guaranty
agency, and the Department.
Add Sec. 682.403(f) specifying that if the conditions for
a waiver are met but the loan has been repaid by a Federal
Consolidation Loan that has an outstanding balance, the Secretary may
waive the portion of the outstanding balance of the consolidation loan
attributable to such a loan once the loan has been assigned to the
Secretary.
Make conforming changes to Sec. Sec. 30.1(c), 30.62(a),
and 30.70(e)(1) based on revisions to the sections noted above.
Significant Proposed Regulations
We discuss substantive issues under the sections of the proposed
regulations to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address
proposed regulatory provisions that are technical or otherwise minor in
effect. For each section of the regulations discussed, we include the
statutory citation, the current regulations being revised (if
applicable), the new proposed regulatory text, and the reasons for why
we proposed to add new regulatory text or revise the existing
regulatory text.
34 Part 30--Debt Collection
Subparts A, C, E, and F (Sec. Sec. 30.1(c), 30.62(a), 30.70(a)(1),
30.70(c)(1) and 30.70(e)(1))
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides
that in the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers,
and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary may enforce, pay,
compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand,
however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: Section 30.1(c) contains the procedures that
the Secretary may use in collecting on a debt owed to the United
States.
Section 30.62(a) provides that for a debt based on a loan, the
Secretary may refrain from collecting interest or charging
administrative costs or penalties to the extent that compromise of
these amounts is appropriate under the standards for compromise of a
debt contained in 31 CFR part 902, which were formerly contained in 4
CFR part 103.
Sections 30.70(a)(1) and 30.70(c)(1) specify that the Secretary
uses the standards in the FCCS to determine whether compromise of a
debt, or suspension or termination of a debt, is appropriate.
Section 30.70(e)(1) provides that the Secretary may compromise a
debt in any amount or suspend or terminate collection of a debt in any
amount, if the debt arises under the FFEL Program authorized under
title IV, part B, of the HEA, the Direct Loan Program authorized under
title IV, part D of the HEA, or the Perkins Loan Program authorized
under title IV, part E, of the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: These proposed regulations would identify
certain conditions under which the Secretary may waive debt, identify
the loan programs eligible for such waivers, clarify the existing
compromise provisions, correct outdated references, and remove obsolete
references. These regulations do not alter the scope of the Secretary's
authority under Section 432(a) of the HEA. Relatedly, the non-
exhaustive waiver provisions neither limit the Secretary's discretion
to waive debt in other circumstances permitted under Section 432(a) nor
do they require the Secretary to undergo rulemaking before taking any
action authorized under Section 432(a). Nevertheless, by providing
greater clarity regarding the Secretary's waiver authority, these
regulations are beneficial to inform the public about how the Secretary
may exercise waiver in a consistent manner to provide appropriate
relief to borrowers in accordance with the provisions and purposes of
the HEA.
Proposed Sec. 30.1(c)(7) would provide that the Secretary may
waive repayment of a debt under subpart G of 34 CFR part 30. Proposed
Sec. 30.62(a) would add to the current compromise provisions language
that would allow the Secretary to waive the collection of interest or
charging administrative costs or penalties on a loan in accordance with
Sec. 30.80. Proposed Sec. Sec. 30.70(a)(1) and 30.70(c)(1) would
specify that, when compromising a debt or when suspending or
terminating a debt, the Secretary ``may'' use the FCCS. Proposed Sec.
30.70(e)(1) would add HEAL Program loans to the list of loan types for
which the Secretary may compromise a debt or suspend or terminate
collection of a debt.
[[Page 27570]]
Technical corrections updating and clarifying various references
and provisions contained in subparts A, C, E, and F of part 30 would
also be made. In addition, severability provisions would be added to
these subparts as new Sec. Sec. 30.9, 30.39, 30.69, and 30.79. The
severability provisions would specify that if any provision of a part
is held to be invalid, the remaining provisions would not be affected.
Reasons: The current regulations in part 30 describe the policies
and procedures that the Secretary uses to collect on a debt owed to the
Department. The Department is proposing a new subpart G to part 30
which would provide greater specificity regarding the Secretary's
discretion to waive Federal student loan debt. This greater specificity
will allow the Department to take more transparent steps that help to
consistently alleviate the significant financial burden Federal student
loans have become for struggling or vulnerable borrowers by waiving
some or all of their outstanding loan balances. Such waivers would
either reduce monthly payments, total amounts owed, or both. The
proposed new language in subpart G would require conforming changes to
some of the existing regulatory language in part 30.
The proposed revision to Sec. 30.1(c)(7) is necessary to provide a
cross-reference to proposed subpart G and the proposed revision to
Sec. 30.62(a) is necessary to provide a cross-reference to proposed
Sec. 30.80.
In 2016, the Department revised Sec. 30.70 to reflect a series of
statutory changes that expanded the Secretary's authority to
compromise, or suspend or terminate the collection of, debts.\9\ In
particular, the Department wanted to highlight the ability of the
agency to resolve debts of less than $100,000 without needing to obtain
approval from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and to include the
ability of DOJ to seek review of resolving claims of more than $1
million. But the inclusion of this provision has created questions
around whether the Department's compromise, suspension, and termination
authority is strictly bound by FCCS standards. The Department's view is
that it is not. To begin, The Federal Claims Collection Act (FCCA) and
the FCCS regulations do not, by their own terms, apply to the
Department's student loan programs.\10\ In addition, the Department's
own regulations also do not strictly bind the Secretary to the FCCS.
The history of revisions to 34 CFR 30.70 reflects that it has been
revised over time to reflect new requirements and authorities but has
consistently recognized the Secretary's broad authority to compromise
student loan debts ``in any amount.'' Reading Sec. 30.70 as subjecting
the Secretary's authority to the FCCS requirements would be contrary to
the stated purpose of the 2016 amendments, which were intended to
``reflect a series of statutory changes that have expanded the
Secretary's authority to compromise, or suspend or terminate the
collection of, debts'' (emphasis added).\11\ The proposed changes to
Sec. Sec. 30.70(a)(1) and 30.70(c)(1) would clarify that the
Secretary's compromise, termination, and suspension authority remain
broad and are not restricted by the FCCA and FCCS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 81 FR 39330 (June 16, 2016); 81 FR 75926 (November 1,
2016).
\10\ When the FCCA was enacted in 1966, it stated that
``[n]othing in this Act shall increase or diminish the existing
authority of the head of an agency to litigate claims, or diminish
his existing authority to settle, compromise, or close claims.''
Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966, Public Law 89-508, 4, 80
Stat. 308 (1966). And the FCCS specifically provides that it does
not ``preclude [ ] agency disposition of any claim under statutes
and implementing regulations other than [the FCCA],'' and that
``[i]n such cases, the laws and regulations that are specifically
applicable to claims collection activities of a particular agency
generally take precedence.'' 31 CFR 900.4. The FCCA and FCCS do not,
on their own terms, limit the Secretary's authority because the HEA
endows the Secretary with separate and independent authority to
compromise a debt, or suspend or terminate collection of a debt. See
Sec. 1082(a).
\11\ 81 FR 39369 (June 16, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The addition of HEAL Program loans to Sec. 30.70(e)(1) would
clarify that the Secretary has the same authority to compromise,
suspend, or terminate a HEAL loan debt as in the Direct Loan, FFEL, and
Perkins loan programs. The negotiating committee agreed to add HEAL
Program loans to Sec. 30.70(e)(1) and raised no specific objections to
the proposed conforming changes or technical corrections. Although
there were no specific objections to the proposed revisions to the
regulations in subparts A, C, E, and F of part 30, the Committee did
not reach consensus on these proposed changes.
The severability provisions we propose to add as new Sec. Sec.
30.9, 30.39, 30.69, 30.79, and 30.89 are intended to clarify that each
regulatory provision in these subparts stands on its own. For the
severability sections in subparts A through F of part 30, these
additions reflect that the subcomponents of each section, as well as
the sections themselves, are distinct. For instance, subpart C lays out
the provisions related to administrative offset. The process in Sec.
30.21 that addresses when the Secretary may offset a debt and the
provisions regarding borrower notice in Sec. 30.22 are separate, and
those, in turn, are separate from the provisions in Sec. 30.25 related
to how an oral hearing may occur.
The severability provision in Sec. 30.89 reflects that the
different waivers proposed in subpart G each address a different set of
circumstances in which the Department is concerned that borrowers may
not be able to repay their loans within a reasonable period. This
severability language also acknowledges that each of these proposed
waivers have their own distinct rationale for their inclusion, and the
effects would vary. For instance, some sections in subpart G would
result in a complete waiver of a borrower's full remaining balance,
while others would only result in a partial waiver. Moreover, as
discussed elsewhere in this rule, there are also provisions within
sections where if either element of this provision were invalidated by
a reviewing court, the element that stayed in effect would continue to
provide important relief to borrowers. This, for instance, can be seen
in proposed Sec. Sec. 30.81 and 30.82. Proposed Sec. 682.403 is
already covered by an existing severability provision in Sec. 682.424.
These provisions were not subject to a consensus check on the part
of the negotiators, although none of the negotiators raised objections
to adding these provisions.
Subpart G
Sec. 30.80 Waiver of Federal Student Loan debts.
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides
that in the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers,
and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary may enforce, pay,
compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand,
however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 30.80 would specify the
Secretary's authority to waive all or part of any Department-held FFEL
Program loan, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan, Federal Perkins
Loan, and HEAL Loan debts owed to the Department under the conditions
included in, but not limited to, Sec. Sec. 30.81 through 30.88.
Reasons: Proposed new subpart G to part 30, which includes sections
Sec. Sec. 30.80-30.89, would provide greater specificity regarding the
Secretary's discretion to waive Federal student loan debt to alleviate
the significant financial burden of student loans on borrowers and
their families. The regulations in part 30 pertain to debts owed to the
Department, therefore proposed Sec. 30.80
[[Page 27571]]
would only apply to student loans held by the Department. This includes
FFEL Program loans that have been assigned to the Department, as well
as Perkins loans and HEAL loans in default. It also includes
consolidation loans that repaid a FFEL, Perkins, or HEAL loan. Waivers
specific to FFEL Program loans held by private lenders or managed by
guaranty agencies would be provided under proposed Sec. 682.403 of the
FFEL Program regulations. The proposed regulations for Sec. 682.403
are discussed later in this NPRM.
Proposed Sec. 30.80 provides an introduction to subpart G and
explains the types of loans covered by this subpart. The Department
proposes to include all the types of Federal student loans held by the
Department, including Direct Loans, FFEL Loans, Perkins Loans, and HEAL
Loans because we believe it is appropriate to consider waivers for all
the loan types managed by the Secretary and organizationally consider
similar subject matter under one subpart. As discussed in other
sections, not all these provisions will apply equally to all loan types
because there are certain benefits that are not otherwise available on
all types of loans. For example, only Direct and FFEL Loans are
eligible to be repaid under IDR plans.
The Department believes adding subpart G in these proposed
regulations better clarifies some circumstances in which the Secretary
may use his existing and longstanding authority under section 432(a) of
the HEA. Current regulations do not describe how the Secretary uses
this waiver authority. Clarifying how this authority would be used
through these regulations would better inform the public about how the
Secretary may exercise his waiver authority in a consistent and
equitable manner.
Providing such specificity would also allow the Department to
highlight circumstances where we are particularly concerned about
borrowers' ability to successfully repay their debt in full in a
reasonable period or where the costs of collection are anticipated to
exceed the amount recoverable. Each of these proposed waivers are
intended to address a variety of conditions that borrowers may
encounter where a waiver may be appropriate. They can and would operate
independently of each other.
The Committee reached consensus on proposed Sec. 30.80.
Sec. 30.81 Waiver when the current balance exceeds the balance
upon entering repayment for borrowers on an IDR plan.
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides
that in the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers,
and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary may enforce, pay,
compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand,
however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 30.81 would provide that the
Secretary may waive the amount by which each of a borrower's loans has
a total outstanding balance that exceeds the amount owed upon entering
repayment if the borrower is enrolled in an IDR plan and meets certain
additional criteria. The original balance would be measured based upon
the original amount disbursed for loans disbursed before January 1,
2005, and the balance of the loans on the day after the grace period
for loans disbursed on or after January 1, 2005. Waiver of repayment of
consolidation loans would be based upon the original balances of the
loans repaid by the consolidation loan.
A borrower would be eligible to receive this waiver once on their
loans if they enrolled in an IDR plan under Sec. Sec. 682.215,
685.209, or 685.221 as of a date determined by the Secretary; and the
borrower's adjusted gross income, or other calculation of income as
shown on acceptable documentation, demonstrates that the borrower's
annual income is equal to or less than $120,000 if their tax filing
status is single or married filing separately; $180,000 if their tax
filing status is head of household; or $240,000 if they are married
filing jointly or a qualifying surviving spouse.
Reasons: Over the past several years, the Department has taken
several significant steps to address the negative effects of interest
accrual and capitalization on borrowers. Effective July 1, 2023, the
Department ceased capitalizing interest in all situations where it is
not required by statute (87 FR 65904). This includes when a borrower
enters repayment, exits a forbearance, leaves any IDR plan besides
Income-Based Repayment (IBR), and enters default. In August 2023, the
Department also implemented a provision in the SAVE plan regulations
under which the Department does not charge any amount of accrued
interest that is not otherwise covered by a borrower's required payment
(88 FR 43820). These changes provide significant benefits that may help
borrowers avoid situations where they find themselves struggling to
repay their debts because their balance has grown far beyond what they
originally borrowed.
The intent of the Department is to take action on a one-time basis
on a borrower's loans to address excessive interest accrual on Federal
student loans. The primary drivers of this accumulation are when
borrowers make payments on an IDR plan that do not cover the full
amount of accumulating interest; periods of non-payment, such as
deferments, forbearances, delinquency, and default; and interest
capitalization. Because prior to the establishment of the Saving on A
Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan IDR plans were the only repayment plans
where payments do not have to at least cover accumulating monthly
interest, the Department is concerned that borrowers owe large balances
that are higher than what they were at repayment entry from prior
enrollment in IDR. Owing such large balances can result in borrowers
needing to repay far more than would have been reasonably expected by
the Department, and the borrower themselves, at the time that the
borrower entered repayment. It can also significantly extend the amount
of time a borrower needs to repay their loans in full. Prior to SAVE,
interest balances climbed even though borrowers made monthly required
payments on IDR plans. Echoing concerns and statements the Department
heard in public comments prior to the formation of the negotiated
rulemaking committee and during the public comment periods held on most
days the negotiated rulemaking committee met, borrowers have reported
that growing balances while in repayment can lead to negative
psychological impacts on borrowers who are attempting to repay their
debt but are unable to, including that they lose hope and motivation to
repay their debt.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2020/05/borrowers-discuss-the-challenges-of-student-loan-repayment;
https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/in-default-and-left-behind/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, while the Department has eliminated all non-
statutorily required instances of interest capitalization, borrowers
today owe higher balances from previous instances of interest
capitalization. Interest capitalization can significantly increase what
a borrower owes and extend the time it takes to repay their loans. The
Department is concerned that such instances are harmful to the borrower
and should therefore be corrected retroactively by waiving the
borrower's obligation to pay such interest accrual after a borrower has
entered repayment.
[[Page 27572]]
While the Department has addressed the issue of balance growth for
those in IDR going forward, there are borrowers who have spent time in
repayment prior to the implementation of these changes who have
experienced the balance of their loans grow such that their loan
balances are now greater than what they originally borrowed. The
persistence of those situations is a problem the Department seeks to
address. Recent focus group reports and extensive borrower testimony
have shown that growing loan balances lead to both financial and
psychological challenges to successful repayment by borrowers.\13\
While borrowers who experienced balance growth have a way to prevent
balance growth in the future, they still must overcome the consequences
of this past balance growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 87 FR 41878 (July 13, 2022); 87 FR 65904 (November 1,
2022); 88 FR 43820 (July 10, 2023). See also https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2020/05/borrowers-discuss-the-challenges-of-student-loan-repayment; https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/in-default-and-left-behind/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the Department has taken steps to address the problem of
excess interest accrual and capitalization going forward, this
provision would only be applied once per a borrower's loans to
eliminate balance growth for all but the highest income borrowers
enrolled in an IDR plan, allowing those who experienced this situation
to successfully make progress on repaying their debts. Providing
targeted relief in this manner would be consistent with the general
principles of Federal debt collection, which permit agencies to provide
relief to borrowers when there is evidence the agency would not
otherwise be able to collect the debt in full within a reasonable
time.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 31 U.S.C. 3711(a)(3). In addition, Congress permitted
ED to compromise or collect debt pursuant to the standards
articulated by ED's own debt collection regulations or Treasury's
debt collection regulations, see 31 U.S.C. 3711(d), which similarly
permit relief where there is evidence the agency would not collect
the debt in full within a reasonable period of time. See, e.g., 31
CFR 902.2(a)(2); 34 CFR 30.70(a)(1) (referencing 31 CFR part 902).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department proposes to provide the benefits in Sec. 30.81 only
to borrowers enrolled in IDR plans for both operational and
administrative reasons. First, borrowers in IDR plans have demonstrated
their concern that they cannot repay their loans on the standard
repayment timeline, making them an important group for the Department
to consider for relief. Second, until the creation of the SAVE plan,
borrowers on IDR plans frequently experienced balance growth from
accruing interest, which this policy seeks to address. Specifically,
the nature of the IDR plans' lower monthly payments meant borrowers'
payments often did not cover monthly interest. Borrowers in the past
who did not recertify their income could also be removed from an IDR
plan at which point any unpaid interest would be capitalized. For both
reasons, it is reasonable for the Department to focus its resources on
providing relief to borrowers on IDR plans to address the current
negative effects of prior interest accumulation and potentially
capitalization. In addition, administrative considerations weigh in
favor of limiting the policy to borrowers in IDR because the Department
has data that will allow it to verify that borrowers fall below the
income cap.
The Department proposes to limit this benefit to borrowers with
income below certain levels to benefit only borrowers for whom their
past instances of balance growth may have a greater possible negative
effect on their ability to repay their debts in the future. The SAVE
plan's interest benefit works in a similar manner. As a borrower's
income rises, their payment covers a greater amount of accumulating
monthly interest. Eventually, for any given debt level there is an
income amount at which a borrower's payment will equal or exceed
accumulating monthly interest. At that point, the borrower does not
derive any assistance from the SAVE plan's interest benefit.
The Department proposes to limit the benefit in this section to
borrowers whose incomes are at or below a certain threshold. To
determine this threshold, the Department looked at the income level at
which a borrower in a single-person household would have a calculated
payment on the SAVE plan that is sufficient to pay off all the interest
accumulating on a monthly basis if their debt level was equal to
$138,000 which is the maximum amount of Federal loans a borrower can
take out for undergraduate and graduate education without taking out
any PLUS loans. We exclude amounts related to PLUS loans because they
do not have an absolute dollar loan limit, as they can be obtained for
up to the total cost of attendance, less other aid received.
Because of the lack of an absolute dollar loan limit, there are
some borrowers who have debts that are much higher than the debt loads
of the overwhelming majority of borrowers. We do not think it was
reasonable to anchor to such outlier amounts, and we therefore take the
conservative approach of not including these dollar amounts. However,
typical balances for Parent PLUS and Graduate PLUS loans are well below
the amounts contemplated here.\15\ Using a value of $138,500 is
inclusive of over 95 percent of loan balances in repayment.
Furthermore, Parent PLUS borrowers are only eligible for an IDR plan if
the borrower has repaid those Parent PLUS loans through consolidation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For example, the average balance for a Parent PLUS loan
recipient is almost $30,000 and the average balance for a Grad PLUS
loan recipient is about $58,000. As of Q4, 2023, see Federal Student
Aid Portfolio by Loan Type, available at: https://studentaid.gov/data-center/student/portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We calculated income thresholds for waiver eligibility in the
following way: First, we assumed that a borrower had a total balance
equal to the maximum non-PLUS amount that a borrower can receive for
undergraduate and graduate education, which is $138,500. We then
assumed that a borrower received the maximum amount of loans for an
undergraduate dependent student ($31,000) and the remainder for
graduate school ($107,500). We did this calculation off a dependent
undergraduate maximum because those are the more common types of
student loan borrowers, and it allows undergraduate loans to make up a
smaller share of the total amount borrowed. If the independent
undergraduate limit were used, the SAVE payment amount would decrease
due to the increased share of undergraduate loans. Using independent
limits would produce an unfair income amount for dependent borrowers,
while independent students are not harmed by using the dependent limit.
In order to determine the interest rate to use for this analysis we
assigned the unweighted average interest rate charged on undergraduate
loans from the 2013-14 award year through the 2023-24 award year to the
undergraduate loans and the equivalent graduate loan rate for the non-
PLUS graduate loans. We used this period to generate an average
interest rate because prior to 2013-14 there were different rates
charged on subsidized versus unsubsidized loans. This produced averages
of 4.3 percent for undergraduate loans and 5.87 percent for graduate
loans. We then weighted these interest rates by the share of the
balance owed for undergraduate and graduate school. This resulted in an
interest rate of 5.52 percent. Next, we used the balance amount and the
interest rate to calculate the amount of interest that would accumulate
on $138,500 at a 5.52 percent interest rate in one month. That amount
is $637.10.
We then calculated the income that a single person would need to
earn to have a monthly payment on SAVE equal to $637.10. In doing this,
we used the
[[Page 27573]]
2024 Federal Poverty Guideline (FPL) amount of $15,060. Using those
data, we calculated that a single person who owes the maximum non-PLUS
amount would have to make more than $119,971 to cease receiving an
interest benefit on SAVE. We then rounded that amount to the nearest
$1,000, which yields a threshold of $120,000.
The Department proposes to use a threshold of $120,000 for
borrowers whose tax filing status is single. We propose to adopt the
same threshold for married-filing-separately taxpayers, mimicking many
rules in the Internal Revenue Code that treat the two filing statuses
similarly. For example, the basic standard deduction for single and
married-filing-separate filers is the same. We propose to use $180,000
for a borrower whose filing status is head of household, which mimics
the treatment under the Internal Revenue Code, in which the standard
deduction is one-and-a-half times what is used for a single-person
household (subject to rounding rules). We propose to use two times the
amount for a single-person household--$240,000 for borrowers whose
status is married filing jointly or qualifying surviving spouse. This
too mirrors how the Internal Revenue Code handles the standard
deduction for these filing statuses relative to someone whose filing
status is single.
The Department acknowledges that this approach to establishing
income thresholds for filing statuses besides single or married filing
separately is different from how we calculate payments on IDR plans.
For IDR plans, we adjust payments for larger households by using some
multiplier of the Federal Poverty Guidelines based upon the size of the
household. The result is that a two-person household does not have
double the amount of income protected that a single-person household
has. We think taking a different approach here is warranted for several
reasons. The consideration under IDR plans is about ensuring borrowers
have enough money set aside to cover their monthly key obligations,
such as food and housing. Those items have economies of scale, which
can be reflected in the household size adjustment. For instance, a two-
person household may be sharing one bedroom, meaning the per-person
household cost is not simply double that for a single person. By
contrast, this waiver is an action that would occur once per borrower
and is not focused on their monthly payment amount. Moreover, because
this waiver is concerned with balance growth borrowers have experienced
during their time since entering repayment, it is possible that some of
this growth would have occurred before borrowers married, had children,
or otherwise grew their household size. For instance, the median age at
repayment entry for borrowers is about 25, while the typical age of
first marriage is about 30 for men and 29 for women.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Based on the American Community Survey 2022 5-year
estimates of Median Age at First Marriage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is not proposing to amend the regulations for SAVE
in this NPRM and will not consider comments related to adjusting the
payment calculations on SAVE in response to this NPRM.
Borrowers whose income exceeds these thresholds would not receive a
waiver under this provision but could have the lesser of $20,000 or the
amount by which their balance upon entering repayment exceeds their
current outstanding balance waived under Sec. 30.82.
The Department's overall goal with this provision is to only
address balance growth that occurred after a borrower entered
repayment. We do not propose to address interest that accumulated
before a borrower first entered repayment, which, prior to July 1,
2023, was capitalized on their balance at the end of the grace period.
The accumulation of interest while a borrower is in school is a
statutory component of Federal Student Loans.\17\ However, the
Department faces certain data limitations that make it impossible to
accurately ascertain the balance upon entering repayment for loans
disbursed before January 1, 2005. For those loans, data regarding the
balance upon the end of the grace period is not stored in the
Department's records. We are concerned that attempts to approximate
that amount may not be accurate and could result in either providing
too much or too little assistance to borrowers. Accordingly, this
provision would provide differential treatment for loans based upon
whether they were disbursed before or after the date by which the
Department can accurately assess the balance owed upon repayment entry.
For loans disbursed after January 1, 2005, we would measure the
original balance based upon the last day of a borrower's grace period,
so that no interest that accumulated prior to entering repayment is
included. For loans disbursed before that date, the Department would
use the original disbursed balance of the loan due to operational
limitations. Because the Department does not have a valid and reliable
data point for balance at repayment entry for borrowers with these
older loans, we think the balance at disbursement is the best available
data to use for loans disbursed before January 1, 2005. This would be
used only for borrowers whose loans are 20 or more years old, which
also means that the vast majority of loans that are that old and are
still outstanding belong to borrowers who have had long-term struggles
repaying. For instance, Department data in the RIA that accompanies
this NPRM show that 83 percent of borrowers whose loans are at least 20
(undergraduate debt) or 25 (graduate debt) years old have previously
experienced a default. Moreover, to the extent borrowers with these
older loans had subsidized loans, they would not have seen interest
accumulate before entering repayment on those loans. These dates
properly balance the policy goals of not waiving interest prior to
repayment entry with the operational reality of using the best
available data. Because the January 1, 2005, disbursement date creates
a clear dividing line that establishes two groups of borrowers, one
with loans disbursed before January 1, 2005, and another with loans
disbursed after that date, if either element of this provision were
invalidated by a reviewing court, the element that stayed in effect
would continue to provide important relief to borrowers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 20 U.S.C. 1077a and 1087e(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee did not reach consensus on proposed Sec. 30.81.
Sec. 30.82 Waiver when the current balance exceeds the balance
upon entering repayment.
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides
that in the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers,
and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary may enforce, pay,
compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand,
however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 30.82 would provide that the
Secretary may waive the lesser of $20,000 or the amount by which a
borrower's loans have a total outstanding balance that exceeds the
balance owed upon entering repayment, for loans disbursed before
January 1, 2005, the balance of the loans on the day after the grace
period for loans disbursed on or after January 1, 2005, or the total
original principal balance of all loans repaid by a Federal
Consolidation Loan or a Direct Consolidation Loan. A borrower who has
received a waiver under Sec. 30.81 would not be eligible for a waiver
under this provision.
[[Page 27574]]
Reasons: Proposed Sec. 30.82 would provide one-time relief to
borrowers who experienced balance growth. While the Department has
taken steps to address the harms of balance growth and interest
capitalization going forward, the recent changes do not address past
instances of balance growth that have resulted in some borrowers owing
more than they originally did when they entered repayment. As
explained, this balance growth adversely affects a borrower's ability
to pay off their loans in full within a reasonable period. We are also
concerned that growing balances while in repayment may lead to negative
psychological impacts on borrowers who are attempting to repay their
debt but are unable to do so.
There are several reasons why a borrower may have seen their loan
balance grow beyond what it was when they entered repayment. They may
have spent time in deferments and forbearances during which interest
accumulated on their loans. This includes both deferments for
unemployment or economic hardship, as well as deferments and
forbearances related to military service. Borrowers may also have seen
their balances grow if they previously spent time on an IDR plan during
which their income-based payment amounts were not sufficient to repay
all the monthly accumulating interest. Borrowers may also have spent
time in which they were not repaying their loans, including periods of
delinquency and in default.
Borrowers who accumulated outstanding unpaid interest also may have
experienced interest capitalization events, such as after a forbearance
ends or after they left an IDR plan, in which outstanding interest was
added onto the loan's principal balance. Once capitalization occurs,
borrowers then pay interest that is calculated off that higher
principal balance, increasing the total amount of interest they need to
repay.
The Department took steps in recent years to avoid balance growth
and in particular to decrease the instances in which borrowers see
their unpaid interest capitalize. Specifically, the Department has
recently taken action to end interest capitalization where it is not
required by statute as well as to create an interest benefit under the
SAVE plan wherein the borrower is not charged for the remaining
interest after a payment is applied. Providing relief through Sec.
30.82 allows the Department to address the current and ongoing issues
for borrowers caused by this past balance growth.
The Department proposes to make the benefits of Sec. 30.82
available to all borrowers because we are concerned about the negative
effects of balance growth regardless of borrowers' past repayment
history or circumstances. While we have proposed a separate provision
in Sec. 30.81 that would provide relief for borrowers who are on an
IDR plan and have incomes below certain levels, the Department sees
Sec. Sec. 30.81 and 30.82 as provisions that can operate in a separate
and distinct manner from each other. Therefore, in developing the
parameters for this provision, the Department considered the optimal
structure for this provision as a standalone benefit. The only
interplay between this provision and Sec. 30.81 is the proposed
limitation in Sec. 30.82(b) that a borrower may not receive relief to
address balance growth under both provisions because the Department
intends to provide one-time relief from balance growth for a borrower
if the Secretary exercises his discretion to grant such relief through
this provision.
The Department believes it is important to provide a benefit under
Sec. 30.82 that is available to all borrowers. An automatic and
universal approach is the simplest to administer and also avoids
problems commonly seen by the Department with application-based
benefits in which the borrowers who would most benefit from the relief
fail to apply. The JP Morgan Chase Institute found in 2022 that there
are two borrowers who could benefit from IDR for every one that is
enrolled.\18\ Similarly, the U.S. Department of the Treasury found that
70 percent of borrowers who were in default in 2012 would have
benefitted from a reduced payment of an IDR plan at the time.\19\
Providing this benefit on a broadly applicable, automatic basis would
allow us to reach all borrowers who face the adverse effects of balance
growth and would create a streamlined process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ www.jpmorganchase.com/institute/research/household-debt/student-loan-income-driven-repayment.
\19\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2015. Federal
Student Loans: Education Could Do More to Help Ensure Borrowers are
Aware of Repayment and Forgiveness Options. GAO-15-663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, because the Department would provide a universal benefit,
we do not believe it would be appropriate to provide uncapped relief.
In particular, there are borrowers who have experienced amounts of
balance growth significantly higher than all other borrowers who have
seen their balances grow. The Department is concerned that waiving
those excessive amounts of balance growth would provide unnecessary
windfall benefits in which there would be significant costs incurred to
help a relatively small number of borrowers.
We propose capping the amount of relief at $20,000 for a borrower
which would strike the balance between granting a level of benefits
that would provide assistance to borrowers while not granting windfall
amounts of relief. This $20,000 amount represents the 90th percentile
of the amount by which balances exceed what borrowers originally owed
upon entering repayment. This amount is informed by using a statistical
approach to identify excess balance values that are dissimilar to most
other values. There are several common ways of defining outliers in a
distribution, and we use a process here that uses multiples of the
interquartile range, referred to as a ``fence.'' \20\ The upper inner
fence is commonly defined as the 75th percentile value plus the
interquartile range multiplied by 1.5. In Department data, the inner
fence is about $18,500, which we round up to $20,000 to create a
simpler value to understand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ For more information on this approach see the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/prc/section1/prc16.htm, or statistical textbooks
such as Ott & Longnecker, An Introduction to Statistical Methods and
Data Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A cap on relief under this provision also acknowledges that
generally borrowers must have larger loan balances in order to
experience greater amounts of balance growth, and that typically
borrowers with larger loan balances have greater earnings potential
than those with lower loan balances.
Examples highlight the connection between loan balance amounts and
the potential for balance growth. Consider a borrower who owes $9,500
at an interest rate of 4.32 percent, the maximum amount of debt an
undergraduate student can take out in a single year and the average
interest rate for undergraduate loans over the last 11 years. If they
did not make a single payment for 10 years their balance would grow by
$4,104. By contrast, a borrower who owes $150,000 all in graduate loans
at an interest rate of 5.87 percent (the average graduate rate over the
last 11 years), would see their balance grow by $88,050 if they did not
make a payment over 10 years. Therefore, among two otherwise similarly
situated borrowers, the borrowers who owe more, particularly in
graduate loans, will see their balance grow faster.
Borrowers with very high balances tend to have higher incomes than
do lower-balance borrowers. That may be because many higher-balance
borrowers
[[Page 27575]]
accumulated some or most of their debt from graduate school, and among
college-educated individuals, those with a graduate degree generally
have higher wages than those with only an undergraduate credential or
without any credential at all.\21\ A higher earning borrower may not
only have a greater ability to pay off their debt in full in a
reasonable period, there is also a greater likelihood that they may be
on an earnings trajectory in which their initial earnings start out
lower and then increase over time. For instance, many health care
professions start with lower wages until the individual completes their
residency. This earnings growth phenomenon is something the Department
has acknowledged in other contexts, such as in the Financial Value
Transparency and GE final regulations in which the Department proposes
to assess the earnings of graduates from certain programs from the
period six or seven years after completion instead of the standard
three or four years used for most other program types. Based upon the
proposed cap of $20,000 on balance growth, we looked at data on
borrowers who experienced balance growth to try to understand any
points where borrowers who would receive relief beyond that cap amount
appear to have a greater likelihood of showing their ability to repay
their debt. This analysis included looking at factors such as the share
of borrowers with loans from graduate school, the rate at which
borrowers received Pell Grants, and whether students had past evidence
of default. While the Department does not have data on borrower
incomes, we imputed income for borrowers based on individuals with
similar demographic and educational characteristics from Census data.
This procedure is imperfect, but we believe it provides a reasonable
approximation of income. We found that borrowers who had less than
$20,000 of excess balance were less likely to have gone to graduate
school and have a lower imputed income. They were also more likely to
have received a Pell Grant or to have experienced student loan default.
This further confirmed our belief that preventing windfall amounts of
relief also helped make this provision better targeted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Borrowers with professional doctoral degrees, which include
fields like medicine, pharmacy, veterinary medicine, and law, have
the highest cumulative student loan balances among those who have
completed postsecondary education (see https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/tub/graduate-student-loan-debt). These are also fields
that tend to have the highest wages (see for example, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm). Borrowers with master's
degrees or higher, also tend to have higher debt (see Bhutta et al.
``Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2016 to 2019: Evidence from
the Survey of Consumer Finances,'' Federal Reserve Bulletin, 2020,
106 (5). https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf20.pdf) For research on the returns to graduate degrees, see, for
example, Altonji & Zhong (2021). The labor market returns to
advanced degrees. Journal of Labor Economics, 39(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department specifically invites feedback from the public on the
approaches considered here. In particular, we are interested in
comments on whether to consider a higher or lower cap on the amount of
balance growth that could be waived and on the rationales for choosing
such caps. We also welcome feedback on whether there should be separate
waiver policies to consider unique circumstances of different groups of
borrowers and how they might be affected by balance growth. Such
groups, for example, could recognize the effect of balance growth as
being different for parent borrowers versus student borrowers because
the former have less access to IDR plans and as a result have less of
an ability to have balances forgiven after a certain period in
repayment.
The different dates for measuring the original balance in Sec.
30.82(a) reflect data limitations the Department faces in accurately
calculating the right balance to use as a baseline. These data
limitations are explained in the discussion of reasons for Sec. 30.81.
During the third negotiated rulemaking session, the Department
proposed two regulatory sections that are similar to proposed Sec.
30.82. The Committee did not reach consensus on these proposed
sections.
Sec. 30.83 Waiver based on time since a loan first entered
repayment.
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides
that in the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers,
and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary may enforce, pay,
compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand,
however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 30.83(a)(1) specifies the
conditions under which the Secretary may waive the outstanding balance
of Federal student loans received for the borrower's undergraduate
study.
Under this proposed rule, borrowers would have their outstanding
balances waived only for loans that were received for undergraduate
study or Direct Consolidation Loans that repaid only loans that were
obtained for undergraduate study, and which first entered repayment on
or before July 1, 2005. Proposed Sec. 30.83(a)(2) describes the
conditions under which the Secretary may grant waivers on outstanding
balances of Federal student loans other than those loans that were
received for undergraduate study, and first entered repayment on or
before July 1, 2000.
Proposed Sec. 30.83(b) specifies how the Department would
calculate the date when a loan originally entered repayment. For a loan
that is not a PLUS loan or a consolidation loan, the Department would
use the day after the loan's initial grace period ends. For PLUS loans
made to either a parent or a graduate or professional student, the
Department would use the date the loan is fully disbursed. For a
Federal Consolidation Loan or Direct Consolidation Loan made prior to
July 1, 2023, the Department would consider the earliest date a loan
repaid by the consolidation loan had the following occur:
For a non-PLUS, non-consolidation loan, the day after its
initial grace period ended,
For a PLUS loan to a graduate or professional student or a
parent, the date the loan was disbursed.
For a Direct Consolidation Loan made on or after July 1, 2023, the
date for measuring repayment entry would be based upon the latest day a
loan repaid by the consolidation loan had its initial grace period end
or was fully disbursed.
Reasons: The standard repayment plan that acts as the default
option for borrowers provides a repayment schedule of 120 monthly
installments of fixed amounts, the equivalent of 10 years.\22\
Similarly, the income contingent repayment authority provides that
borrowers repay over an extended period, but such repayment period is
not to exceed 25 years.\23\ More recently, the IBR plan provides that a
borrower's repayment term ends when they reach the equivalent of 20 or
25 years of monthly payments, depending on when they first took out
loans.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See 20 U.S.C. 1078(b)(9)(A)(i) and 20 U.S.C.
1087e(d)(1)(A).
\23\ See 20 U.S.C. 1087e(d)(1)(D).
\24\ See 20 U.S.C. 1098e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is concerned that despite the presence of ways for
repayment to end, too many borrowers end up owing loans for years, if
not decades, longer than the repayment plans generally require. In
estimates presented later in the RIA, millions of borrowers have been
in repayment for over 20 or 25 years.\25\ The Department
[[Page 27576]]
is particularly concerned that when loans persist for this long, they
are unlikely to be repaid in a reasonable period of time. In
recognition of this problem, Congress and the Department have made
several statutory and regulatory changes to the student loan program so
that borrowers can fully repay their debt within a reasonable time.
However, borrowers who took out loans prior to the creation of these
changes spent years or decades without the generous benefits that exist
today and, as a result, may have faced more repayment challenges and be
less likely to retire their debts within a reasonable time. The
Department has already taken some steps to address this concern through
the payment count adjustment. In that situation, the Department was
concerned that because of inaccurate recordkeeping, borrowers may not
have received appropriate credit toward forgiveness on IDR plans that
they had earned. We were also worried about incorrect application of
policies designed to limit repeated use of forbearances or properly
tracking which deferments are supposed to count toward forgiveness. To
that end, we credit all months a borrower spent in a repayment status,
plus any months during which a borrower spent 12 consecutive or 36
cumulative months in a forbearance, and any deferments besides being
in-school prior to 2013. We also do not reset progress toward
forgiveness based upon loan consolidation. While the payment count
adjustment provides important assistance, it does not capture the full
set of circumstances in which a borrower may struggle to accrue time to
forgiveness. This includes time spent in default and time spent in
forbearance that does not meet the criteria of the payment count
adjustment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ There is also evidence of many borrowers being in repayment
for a long time in a paper by the Urban Institute using credit panel
data estimated that there are nearly 100,000 borrowers with loans
that were first originated prior to 1990, making them well more than
30 years old. The author also estimated that 1.5 million borrowers
had a loan with an origination date before 2000. The author notes
these statistics may well be an underestimate because older debts
may no longer appear on a borrower's credit report even though they
are still outstanding. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/101492/when_student_loans_linger_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department views proposed Sec. 30.83 as providing a waiver to
borrowers who have had their loans for such an extended period that
they are unlikely to fully repay within a reasonable period.
In drafting Sec. 30.83, the Department has proposed to adopt
several parameters to mirror the existing IDR plans. For instance, we
would use debt relief thresholds of 20 or 25 years because those are
the same periods available on IDR plans. We propose applying this
provision to loans that entered repayment on or before July 1, 2005 for
borrowers who do not have any graduate loans because these borrowers
will have been in repayment for all or part of 20 calendar years or
more when the regulation is implemented; and we propose applying this
provision to loans that entered repayment on or before July 1, 2000 for
borrowers who have any graduate loans because these borrowers will have
been in repayment for all or part of 25 calendar years when this
provision is implemented. We also elected to use the differential
treatment of undergraduate and graduate borrowers that exists in SAVE
and was carried over from the since-replaced Revised Pay As You Earn
(REPAYE) plan. The Department further believes after reviewing
information identified in FSA's Enterprise Data Warehouse, that the
differential treatment for undergraduate versus graduate loans is
reasonable because Department data show that undergraduate borrowers go
into delinquency or default at significantly higher rates than graduate
borrowers. According to these data, 90 percent of borrowers who are in
default on their loans had only taken out loans for their undergraduate
education. By contrast, only 1 percent of borrowers who are in default
only had graduate loans.
In proposing this treatment of loans that entered repayment a long
time ago, the Department would not adopt the terms for a shortened
period until forgiveness that is included in SAVE. That provision
allows borrowers to receive forgiveness after as few as 120 payments if
their original principal balance was $12,000 or less. The Department
does not think it is appropriate to adopt that threshold here because
this timeline is only available under the SAVE plan. By contrast, the
goal of Sec. 30.83 is to address situations where borrowers have been
unable to fully repay in a reasonable time and have not even been able
to repay in full over an extended period. This extended period is
consistent with the forgiveness timelines on other IDR plans, which
provide repayment terms of up to 20 or 25 years.
The Department also proposes to include language in Sec. 30.83(b)
explaining how we would determine the date of repayment entry in
several different situations. For loans that are not PLUS loans or
consolidation loans, we propose to use the date after the final day of
a loan's grace period. That is the most intuitive date associated with
what it means to enter repayment. For PLUS loans made to either a
parent or a graduate or professional student we propose using the day
the loan is fully disbursed. This recognizes that PLUS loans have
multiple options for when borrowers enter repayment. Since 2008, parent
borrowers have had the option to defer repayment entry until after the
dependent undergraduate leaves school. But not all choose to do this,
and some parents choose to enter repayment right away, in which case
their repayment entry date is the same as the disbursement date.
Similarly, graduate borrowers have the option to decline their in-
school deferment. Using the date of disbursement is therefore a
consistent treatment of PLUS loans regardless of whether the borrower
elected to go into repayment right away.
The Department proposes a simpler solution for picking the date to
assign for repayment entry for a consolidation loan. We are concerned
that simply counting the date of the consolidation loan's disbursement
would be unfair to borrowers because it could result in erasing years
of time since repayment entry for borrowers, unwittingly. The
Department has addressed concerns about a full reset of forgiveness
clocks through consolidation in recent regulations on IDR and PSLF and
maintains that concern here. In those circumstances we have addressed
that issue through using a weighted average of the underlying
loans.\26\ Instead, for this regulation we propose an approach that is
simpler to administer and clearer to understand. For consolidation
loans made before July 1, 2023, we propose using the earliest date that
any loan that was repaid by a consolidation loan ended its initial
grace period or was disbursed in the case of a PLUS loan. We propose
this date of July 1, 2023, because it was the day after the Department
announced this rulemaking in a press release and there was no way a
borrower could have known to consolidate and receive this benefit.\27\
As such, borrowers could not have engaged in any strategic
consolidation to receive this benefit before July 1, 2023. For
consolidation loans disbursed on or after July 1, 2023, we propose to
instead use the latest date that any loan repaid by the consolidation
ended its initial grace period, or in the case of a PLUS loan was
disbursed. By establishing these different thresholds, a borrower's
repayment progress will not fully reset when a borrower consolidates
loans on which a borrower had previously made payments. In addition,
[[Page 27577]]
this also makes certain that a borrower could not consolidate after the
Department announced this proposal in order to receive a waiver of
newer loans alongside older ones. We have determined that this approach
is more operationally feasible and carries a lower risk of errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See 34 CFR 685.209(k)(4)(v)(B) and 34 CFR 685.219(c)(3).
\27\ https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-provide-debt-relief-and-support-student-loan-borrowers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During negotiated rulemaking, the Department proposed only waiving
loans that first entered repayment 20 or 25 years ago at the time we
would implement this section. Negotiators and public commenters raised
significant concerns about how such an approach would create a ``cliff
effect'' in which a borrower who falls just a month or two short of 20
or 25 years would not be eligible for a waiver, despite facing
significant financial burden of student loan debt over time and facing
many of the same repayment challenges as those borrowers eligible for
relief under this provision.
The Department understands the concerns raised by negotiators and
members of the public about the challenges with operating this policy
only once. At the same time, however, the Department is concerned that
an ongoing policy would not recognize how the Department has taken
steps to address many repayment challenges on a going-forward basis by
introducing several IDR plans, including the new SAVE plan, which
should make it substantially easier going forward for borrowers to make
payments that qualify for forgiveness. We have not yet identified a
solution to this issue that would still encourage borrowers who have
not yet reached forgiveness to continue making required payments until
they reach the 20- or 25-year mark. And for any solution for this
cliff, we would need a way to appropriately model the likelihood that a
borrower does take necessary steps in the future to be eligible for
relief under this approach so that we can assign it the proper
estimated cost in the net budget impact.
Given the considerations outlined above and in light of the changes
the Department has made under recent IDR plans, we invite feedback from
the public about how to acknowledge and address the repayment
challenges of borrowers who entered repayment a long time ago, but not
long enough to immediately qualify under this provision, and who are
unlikely to repay their loan in full in a reasonable period. We also
invite feedback on how to determine the likelihood that any borrower
who does not yet reach forgiveness under the proposed policy would
qualify for forgiveness under any suggested alternative one. For
example, if the Department were to award credit toward forgiveness
timelines for all months since entering repayment up until July 2024
(when all of SAVE's provisions become effective), and a borrower first
entered repayment at least 15 years ago, what standards are appropriate
for determining whether the borrower reaches the 20- or 25-year
threshold in light of the Department's recent steps to fix repayment
challenges through SAVE? In addition, how would the Department
determine the likelihood that such borrower ultimately takes necessary
steps to reach a 20 or 25-year forgiveness threshold under the proposed
standard?
The Committee did not reach consensus on proposed Sec. 30.83.
Sec. 30.84 Waiver when a loan is eligible for forgiveness based
upon repayment plan.
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides
that in the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers,
and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary may enforce, pay,
compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand,
however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 30.84 would specify that the
Secretary may waive the outstanding balance of a loan for borrowers who
are otherwise eligible for forgiveness under an IBR plan, Income-
contingent Repayment (ICR) plan, or an alternative repayment plan but
are not currently enrolled in the plan where they could receive
forgiveness. The amount of the waiver would be the same as what the
borrower would receive under the applicable IDR plan. Currently
borrowers who are repaying their loans under an IDR plan must meet the
eligibility requirements to enroll and qualify for forgiveness of their
Federal student debt. Under all IDR plans, any remaining loan balance
is forgiven if their loans are not fully repaid at the end of the
repayment period.
Reasons: Congress and the Department have provided borrowers with
various income-based repayment plan options over time. The Department
currently offers four IDR plans: the IBR plan, ICR plan, Pay as You
Earn Repayment (PAYE) plan, and the new SAVE plan that replaced the
former REPAYE plan. For purposes of this NPRM we refer to IBR, ICR,
PAYE, SAVE, and REPAYE collectively as IDR plans.
The HEA sets forth the requirements for borrowers to receive relief
under the terms of the various IDR plans. For both ICR and IBR, a
borrower may receive relief as long as they have accumulated the
requisite amount of time making qualified payments or being in a
qualified deferment.\28\ The HEA does not require these qualifying
payments or deferments to occur while the borrower is enrolled in an
ICR plan to receive relief under ICR,\29\ nor must they occur while a
borrower is on an IBR plan to receive relief under IBR.\30\ Rather, the
HEA permits borrowers to receive relief under these plans so long as
the borrower participates in them at some point after such qualifying
payments or deferments have occurred.\31\ While the HEA's ICR and IBR
provisions do specify steps and procedures for obtaining a borrower's
income information to calculate reduced payments under these plans,
there is no requirement that borrowers provide such information as a
condition of receiving relief. Instead, the HEA leaves the specific
details of how to operationalize the procedures for enrolling in IDR
plans up to the Secretary. Under this proposed provision, the Secretary
would use information within the Department's possession to identify
borrowers already eligible for relief and provide them with the
opportunity to enroll in the IDR plan by choosing not to opt-out of
receiving a waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See 20 U.S.C. 1087e(e)(7) (ICR provision describing
qualifying payments and deferments for relief); 20 U.S.C. 1098(b)(7)
(IBR provision describing qualifying payments and deferments for
relief).
\29\ See 20 U.S.C. 1087e(e)(7).
\30\ 20 U.S.C. 1098(b)(7) (stating the Secretary may repay or
cancel any outstanding balance of principal and interest for a
borrower who ``at any time, elected to participate in'' an IBR plan
and meets the conditions for qualified payments or deferment).
\31\ See 20 U.S.C. 1087e(e)(7); 20 U.S.C. 1098(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such waivers would benefit many borrowers because the Department's
current IDR regulations require borrowers to apply to enroll in IDR
plans.\32\ Unfortunately, Department experience and independent
research shows that there have been persistent challenges getting
borrowers who would benefit from IDR plans to enroll in them.\33\ And
when borrowers do enroll, large shares of them fail to successfully
recertify and stay enrolled. For example, one study by the JP Morgan
Chase Institute found that for every borrower enrolled in IDR there are
two others who would benefit from such a plan but
[[Page 27578]]
are not enrolled.\34\ Similarly, the Federal Reserve Bank of
Philadelphia found that many borrowers were unaware of the new SAVE
plan, especially among borrower groups who were most likely to benefit
from it, and potential beneficiaries remained uncertain even after
learning about plan features and benefits.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 34 CFR 685.209(l).
\33\ Goldstein, Adam, Charlie Eaton, Amber Villalobos, Parijat
Chakrabarti, Jeremy Cohen, and Katie Donnelly. ``Administrative
Burden in Federal Student Loan Repayment, and Socially Stratified
Access to Income-Driven Repayment Plans.'' RSF: The Russell Sage
Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 9, no. 4 (2023): 86-111.
\34\ https://www.jpmorganchase.com/institute/research/household-debt/student-loan-income-driven-repayment#finding-1.
\35\ https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/frbp/assets/consumer-finance/reports/cfi-sl-payments-3-resumption.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is concerned that its past practices of
administering IDR plans have made it too challenging for borrowers to
successfully navigate these processes. The result has been borrowers
struggling to figure out which IDR plan is best, determine whether they
are eligible, and then submit an application.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Herbst, Daniel. ``The impact of income-driven repayment on
student borrower outcomes.'' American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics 15, no. 1 (2023): 1-25.; Conkling, Thomas S., and Christa
Gibbs. ``Borrower experiences on income-driven repayment.'' Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, Office of Research Reports Series 19-10
(2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Department's current regulations, borrowers must also re-
enroll in the IDR plan each year and risk being removed from the plan
if they fail to recertify their participation in a timely basis. The
Department has taken many steps in recent years to address this
problem. We created the SAVE plan, which addresses many of the issues
that borrowers experienced in other IDR plans. We also are implementing
a regulatory change \37\ that makes it possible for borrowers to
automatically recertify their IDR enrollment by providing approval for
the disclosure of their Federal tax information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/07/10/2023-13112/improving-income-driven-repayment-for-the-william-d-ford-federal-direct-loan-program-and-the-federal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is also concerned about how past challenges with
administering IDR plans may have exacerbated these issues for borrowers
with older loans. In April 2022, the Department announced it was taking
executive action to address concerns about a lack of consistent
tracking of borrower progress toward forgiveness and improper
implementation of policies designed to limit the use of extended time
in forbearances.\38\ Through that process we have identified and
provided relief to hundreds of thousands of borrowers who were eligible
for IDR forgiveness but had not enrolled. Simultaneously, the
Department put in place processes to fix these issues going forward,
including giving borrowers a clear count of their progress toward
forgiveness and addressing the use of forbearances. However, we are
concerned that there is still a group of borrowers who did not reach
forgiveness through the payment count adjustment and who are not so new
to borrowing that all their time in repayment would be covered by these
improvements. In particular, these would be borrowers who are eligible
for the forgiveness benefits under the SAVE plan, which provides
forgiveness after as few as 120 months (10 years) in repayment for
borrowers who originally took out $12,000 or less. Keeping borrowers
such as these in the repayment system when they could receive a
discharge immediately creates costs for the Department because we have
to continue to pay servicers to manage these loans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/department-education-announces-actions-fix-longstanding-failures-student-loan-programs?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department proposes applying this section to borrowers repaying
under all types of IDR plans, including those created under the income-
contingent repayment authority and IBR, and the alternative plan. We
include the alternative plan as well because that plan contains an
option to provide borrowers forgiveness after a set period of time,
even if they have not paid off the full balance. In that regard it is
similar to IDR plans. By contrast, other payment plans do not provide
forgiveness and so are not appropriate to include in this section.
In applying this waiver, the Secretary would provide borrowers with
relief identical to what they would have otherwise received on the
relevant IDR plan. They are not receiving benefits any larger than they
otherwise would have if they successfully navigated the enrollment or
re-enrollment process.
The non-Federal negotiators supported the Department's proposal to
waive the outstanding balance of loans and encouraged the Department to
automate the process and expedite the approval and debt relief as much
as possible.
The Committee reached consensus on proposed Sec. 30.84.
Sec. 30.85 Waiver when a loan is eligible for a targeted
forgiveness opportunity.
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides
that in the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers,
and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary may enforce, pay,
compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand,
however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 30.85 would provide that the
Secretary may waive up to the entire outstanding balance of a loan
where the Secretary determines that a borrower has not successfully
applied for, but otherwise meets, the eligibility requirements for any
other loan discharge, cancellation, or forgiveness program under 34 CFR
parts 682 or 685. This includes opportunities such as false
certification discharge, closed school loan discharges, and Public
Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF).
The proposed regulations also specify that if a borrower has a
Direct Consolidation Loan or a Federal Consolidation Loan where only
part of it would meet the criteria of this section that the Secretary
may waive the portion of the outstanding balance of the consolidation
loan attributable to such loan.
Reasons: The HEA outlines several opportunities for borrowers in
the Direct or FFEL Programs to receive Federal student loan forgiveness
in certain situations if the borrower meets the eligibility
requirements. For both loan types, this includes forgiveness when a
borrower is enrolled at a school that closes, if they have a total and
permanent disability, or have a loan that has been falsely certified.
Direct Loan borrowers are also eligible for PSLF.
The Department has historically seen many situations where
borrowers do not successfully apply for available relief when they are
eligible. For example, in August 2021, the Department issued a final
rule that provided automatic forgiveness for borrowers who were
identified as eligible for a total and permanent disability discharge
through a data match with the Social Security Administration.\39\ The
Department had been using such a match for years to identify eligible
borrowers but required them to opt in to receive relief. After
switching to an opt out model, we have provided relief to more than
350,000 borrowers, showing that a default of inclusion helps these
programs to reach the people who need them. Absent this action it is
possible many of these borrowers would still have loans today.
Similarly, GAO studies of closed school loan discharges have found that
many borrowers eligible for a closed school loan discharge fail to
apply, and that those who in the past received automatic closed school
loan discharges after a three-year waiting period were
[[Page 27579]]
highly likely to default during the waiting period.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 87 FR 65904 (November 1, 2022).
\40\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-105373.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The waivers proposed in this section would build on efforts made by
the Department over the past several years to improve regulations for
existing discharge programs to allow the Secretary to award borrowers
relief under different programs if we determine that they otherwise
meet the criteria. Beyond the regulatory programs to automatically
provide discharges to eligible borrowers, the Secretary may have or
obtain information showing that additional borrowers are or should be
eligible for relief on their loans. For example, borrowers whose
schools closed while they were enrolled outside of the time periods
that the Department provided automatic relief would nonetheless be
eligible for this relief if they applied. By giving these borrowers an
opportunity to obtain the relief intended for them by choosing not to
opt out, this rule would make that relief available in a fairer manner
that lessens the burdens on borrowers. Although schools can be liable
for relief provided based on the closed school discharge regulation,
schools would not face a liability for waivers granted under this
section. Because the Secretary would have waived the amounts owed by
the borrower there is no liability that could then be established
against the institution and then pursued through administrative
proceedings.
It is possible that a borrower whose loans have been consolidated
could have some of the loans repaid by the consolidation that are
eligible for a waiver and some that would not be. For example, a
borrower could have loans from one school that are eligible for a
closed school loan discharge and other loans that are not. In such
situations the Department would waive repayment of the portion of the
consolidation loan attributable to that loan repaid by the
consolidation loan that is eligible for the waiver.
Overall, the Department believes that this waiver will provide
additional flexibility and help get relief to more borrowers who are
eligible for Federal student loan forgiveness.
One non-Federal negotiator opposed this proposed regulation. The
negotiator stated concerns for other borrowers who are already eligible
for Federal student loan discharges who would be treated differently
under the waiver authority and may lose other benefits currently
provided by existing Federal student loan discharge programs. This same
negotiator provided an example of a borrower who may face tax
consequences if they receive this benefit under the waiver instead of
utilizing other discharge programs where such a discharge would be
statutorily excluded from being considered taxable income. By law,
there is no Federal taxation on Federal student loans forgiven by the
Department through the end of 2025.\41\ Before any usage of this
authority the Department would also consider whether a borrower is
already eligible for a discharge under the existing forgiveness
opportunity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Title IX, Subtitle G, Part 8, section 9675 of the
American Rescue Plan Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 117-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee did not reach consensus on proposed Sec. 30.85.
Sec. 30.86 Waiver based upon Secretarial actions.
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides
that in the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers,
and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary may enforce, pay,
compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand,
however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Under proposed Sec. 30.86(a), the Secretary
may waive the entire outstanding balance of a loan associated with
attending an institution or a program at an institution if the
Secretary or other authorized Department official took certain final
agency actions. These final agency actions are: termination of the
institution or academic program's participation in the title IV, HEA
programs; a denial of the institution's request for recertification; or
determination that the institution or program loses title IV
eligibility. To qualify under this section, the final agency action
must have been taken in whole or in part due to the institution or
academic program failing to meet an accountability standard based on
student outcomes for determining eligibility in the title IV, HEA
programs or the Department determining that the institution or program
failed to deliver sufficient financial value to students. Such
situations that are evidence of failure to provide sufficient financial
value include when the institution or program has engaged in
substantial misrepresentations, substantial omissions, misconduct
affecting student eligibility, or other similar activities. Currently,
proposed 30.86(a)(2) also includes the following language: ``this
paragraph applies to circumstances when the institution or program has
lost accreditation at least in part due to such activities.'' The
intent of the consensus language was to clarify that the underlying
finding that supports the Department's determination that an
institution or program failed to deliver financial value under proposed
Sec. 30.86(a)(2) could be a finding made by the Department or it could
be a finding made by an accreditor that terminated accreditation based
at least in part on that finding. Since the Committee reached consensus
on the language included in 30.86, the Department included it in these
proposed regulations. However, the Department believes that this intent
could be stated more clearly as: ``The institution or program has
failed to deliver sufficient financial value to students, including in
situations where either (i) the Department has determined that the
institution or program has engaged in substantial misrepresentations,
substantial omissions, misconduct affecting student eligibility, or
other similar activities; or (ii) the Department has determined that
the accrediting agency has terminated its accreditation based at least
in part upon a finding that the institution or program has engaged in
the activities described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.'' The
Department invites comments on this possible change.
Proposed Sec. 30.86(b) would specify that the waiver applies to a
borrower's loans received for attending that program or school during
the period that corresponds with the findings or outcomes data unless
the Department believes the use of a different period is appropriate.
In the case of a Federal Consolidation Loan or Direct Consolidation
Loan that has an outstanding balance, under proposed Sec. 30.86(c) the
Secretary would waive the portion of the outstanding balance of the
consolidation loan attributable to such loan received for attending
that program or school during the period that corresponds with the
findings or outcomes data.
Reasons: Conducting rigorous oversight and enforcing accountability
measures are key functions for the Department.\42\ Identifying
situations in which institutions or programs are failing to meet
requirements of the HEA and taking action to prevent the flow of future
title IV aid dollars is an important way to solidify that taxpayer
funds are well spent and to protect future borrowers and aid recipients
from harm.
[[Page 27580]]
However, while we take aggressive action to protect future borrowers
and aid recipients, we often do not address loans held by borrowers who
attended programs or institutions at the very time we observed the
issues that led to the termination of future aid receipt. For example,
a borrower who attended an institution that lost access to aid because
of high CDRs, is still left to repay their loans, even as the
Department takes steps to protect future borrowers from going into debt
at those institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Some examples of the Department's oversight and compliance
measures over institutions include but are not limited to: program
reviews authorized under Sec. 498A of the HEA; requiring most
institutions to submit a compliance and financial audit authorized
under Sec. 487(c) of the HEA; and others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This waiver would provide relief to borrowers who received loans to
attend programs or institutions that lost access to title IV aid for
specific agency actions if they took out loans during the period that
generated the outcomes data that led to the aid termination or who
attended during the period covered by evidence that was used to justify
cutting off title IV aid into the future.
The Department believes waivers in this situation are appropriate
because we think it is unfair to expect borrowers to continue repaying
loans from a time when we know the issues at the institution or program
were so significant that they warranted adverse Secretarial action.
These are loans where we know the borrower is not getting the benefit
of the bargain one should expect when they take out loans for
postsecondary education or, in cases such as substantial
misrepresentation, that the loans should not have been made in the
first place.
Waivers of Federal student loan debt under proposed Sec. 30.86
would only apply after a final agency action. That means the
institution would have exhausted its administrative appeals for that
final action. For example, if the Secretary denies an institution's
request for recertification, that institution would still be afforded
the opportunity to appeal that denial in accordance with 34 CFR part
668, subpart G and only until the institution exhausts its appeals
options for the denial of the recertification--or indicates that it
does not intend to appeal the decision--would the Department consider
waiving affected borrowers' loan balances in accordance with this
regulation. If an institution does not appeal a liability in a specific
finding in a Final Program Review Determination (FPRD), the finding in
that FPRD would be considered final. Relying only on final agency
actions also means that instances in which the Secretary initiates an
action and then does not finalize it due to a successful appeal would
not be included. For example, if an institution successfully appeals a
failing CDR and does not lose aid eligibility, borrowers who attended
the institution would not be eligible for a waiver under this section.
The Department also recognizes that sometimes agency actions are
ultimately resolved through settlements. We propose that settlements
where there is an acknowledgement of wrongdoing would qualify as a
final agency action under this section, while settlements that lack
such an acknowledgment of wrongdoing would not. We believe this
approach is appropriate because the proposed regulation applies if the
Department determines the program or institution failed an
accountability measure related to student outcomes or failed to provide
sufficient financial value.
Institutions would also not be liable for the costs associated with
any waivers granted under this section. Because this is an exercise of
the Secretary's waiver authority there would not be a liability to seek
against an institution. The one exception is for liabilities related to
certain loans issued while an institution appeals or requests for an
adjustment to its CDR. Liabilities for those amounts are discussed in
Sec. 668.206(f).
This waiver would be used only when the termination of the
institution's title IV participation occurred for specific reasons.
These fall into two categories. The first is the institution's failure
of accountability standards based on student outcomes, namely those
related to CDRs and Gainful Employment. This includes failures of those
measures that occurred in the past when they resulted in loss of title
IV eligibility.\43\ The Department chose these types of measures
because those are situations in which the Department directly measured
the outcomes of borrowers in a specific cohort and found the results so
lacking that aid could not continue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ There are some institutions that previously lost title IV
eligibility because of failing CDRs, and qualifying loans associated
with those institutions would be eligible. By contrast, there are
not any programs that previously lost title IV eligibility based on
failing GE measures because the prior rule was rescinded before any
program lost eligibility, and the new rule does not go into effect
until July 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An institution would have to fail its CDR or GE metrics enough
times to warrant a final action from the Department and that failure
would have to be sustained following any appeal options available to
the institution or program.
This waiver would not apply to the failure of other metrics that
are not directly tied to student outcomes. This includes the
calculation of an institution's financial responsibility composite
score prescribed in 34 CFR part 668, subpart L or for proprietary
institutions, their 90/10 non-Federal revenue calculation prescribed in
34 CFR 668.28. These other performance standards are important but do
not directly measure student outcomes.
The Department is not concerned that granting a waiver based upon
student outcomes would create an incentive for future borrowers to
willfully default on their loans or take other actions that could cause
the program to fail the debt-to-earnings or earnings premium measures
used in Gainful Employment. First, all these measures operate on the
observed outcomes across either all borrowers who entered repayment or
all those who received title IV aid and graduated. They also generally
require measuring performance across multiple years. The lone exception
to this being a one-year CDR in excess of 40 percent, which leads to a
loss of loan eligibility. Intentionally failing the measure would
require extremely coordinated activity across likely multiple years of
students. Making such a situation further unlikely is the fact that the
consequences of intentionally failing a measure with uncertain odds of
success could be significant. Defaulting on a student loan has
significant consequences. Borrowers can see their credit scores plummet
and tax refunds seized. Regarding Gainful Employment metrics, borrowers
would be having to settle for lower earnings, which has additional
effects on their ability to afford basic necessities.
The second type of actions relate to situations where there is a
determination that the institution or program failed to deliver
sufficient financial value. We propose defining this as findings that
an institution engaged in substantial misrepresentations or omissions
of fact, misconduct affecting student eligibility, or other similar
activities. We chose these situations because those would be cases in
which the institution engaged in behavior that affected the value of
what a borrower received for their loans. For instance, if the
Department terminates aid on a prospective basis because it finds that
an institution had been consistently lying to borrowers about their
ability to get jobs when in fact internal statistics showed that fewer
than half of students obtained employment in the field in which they
were being prepared then that is a sign that the borrower did not
receive what they were promised. We would also waive repayment of the
loans of borrowers who were included in those periods used to determine
that the actual employment rates were far lower than what was promised.
Waivers
[[Page 27581]]
granted because of this section could also include circumstances where
the Secretary terminates aid because an institution or program loses
accreditation at least in part for the same type of reasons.
The Department recognizes that borrowers eligible for relief under
this provision may also be eligible for relief under the Department's
other discharge programs, such as borrower defense. As a general
matter, the Department does not see a problem with providing
overlapping pathways to relief. Such overlaps are not uncommon in the
student loan system. For example, there have been many borrowers who
have been eligible for both a closed school loan discharge and a
borrower defense discharge. In such instances, the Department has opted
to proceed with the most operationally efficient discharge since the
borrower receives the same benefits under either option. Where
possible, the Department intends to provide eligible borrowers relief
through other existing discharge programs, such as borrower defense or
closed school discharge. But the Department's experience is that there
are some circumstances where a borrower may not receive relief under
these discharges but meets the conditions of Sec. 30.86(a)(2).
Waivers in this section would not be granted in response to every
action the Department takes to terminate aid access at an institution.
For instance, an institution that loses access to aid because of
financial problems, solely because it closed, or other situations that
do not speak to the returns received by students would not be captured
here. Because those aid loss circumstances do not relate to the benefit
received by borrowers, we do not think it is appropriate to include
them here as a waiver. The Department would make the determination as
to whether an action meets this requirement for each institution or
program.
Final actions under proposed Sec. 30.86 would include those
sanctions in 34 CFR part 668, subparts G and H, other final actions
stemming from an institution's loss of eligibility under 34 CFR part
600, subpart D, as well as other final action by the Department. As the
Department explained during negotiated rulemaking sessions, these final
actions are situations where the Secretary or other Departmental
official has taken formal action to cease an institution or program's
participation in the title IV, HEA programs on a prospective basis.
A non-Federal negotiator encouraged us to include an institution's
loss of accreditation as a condition under which the Department could
waive repayment of Federal student loan debt and another negotiator
believed a more expansive general loss of title IV eligibility should
be used as a basis for waiving repayment. The Department concurred and
incorporated in Sec. 30.86(a)(2), circumstances when the institution
or program loses accreditation as a basis for waiving Federal student
loan debt under this proposed section.
Under proposed Sec. 30.86(b), the Department would apply this
provision to a borrower's loans received for attending that institution
or program during the period that corresponds with the findings or
outcomes data that forms the basis for the final action for this
waiver. For example, if an institution lost access to title IV aid due
to CDRs in excess of the statutory limits for borrowers who entered
repayment in 2016, 2017, and 2018, then we would waive repayment of the
loans from that institution of borrowers who borrowed during that
period. Similarly, if an institution lost access to aid because of
substantial misrepresentations in a nursing program in 2023, then we
would waive repayment of the loans of borrowers who took out loans for
that program in that period of the final action.
Limiting this waiver only to borrowers whose enrollment overlaps
during the corresponding period enables the scope of the findings or
outcomes data to apply to similarly situated borrowers and provides
consistent treatment to all affected borrowers. At the same time, the
Department recognizes that there could be unique circumstances in which
the period used for the Secretarial action does not fully capture the
period during which the Department believes the actions covered by this
section otherwise occurred. In such circumstances, proposed Sec.
30.86(b), allows for the Secretary to designate an alternative period
for determining a borrower's eligibility for a waiver. Examples of such
considerations could be capturing additional years related to CDR
failures where the Department has reason to believe an institution
would have failed except for efforts to manipulate rates to keep them
artificially low. Another instance might also be years that took place
after an investigation that led to a Secretarial action and a school
action started but the institution later closed making it infeasible
for the Department to add the years after its investigation finished to
be included in the period of identified conduct. For example, if the
Department investigated an institution from 2020 to 2022 and finished
the process of a Secretarial action in 2024, after which the school
closed, the Secretary may choose to consider whether loans disbursed
from 2023 and 2024 should also be considered under this provision.
Finally, the Department also concurred with a non-Federal
negotiator who suggested we include an additional paragraph which
states that if the conditions of the waiver are met and the loan was
repaid by a consolidation loan that has an outstanding balance, the
Department would waive the portion of the outstanding balance of the
consolidation loan attributable to such loan. We believe that it is
logical to waive only the underlying loan that was part of a
consolidation loan associated with the final action associated for this
waiver. Borrowers who otherwise consolidated their loans would have a
pathway toward this waiver and would not lose their opportunities for
this waiver because of the consolidation.
The Committee reached consensus on proposed Sec. 30.86.
Sec. 30.87 Waiver following a closure prior to Secretarial
actions.
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides
that in the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers
and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary may enforce, pay,
compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand,
however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Under proposed Sec. 30.87(a)(1), the
Secretary may waive the entire outstanding balance of a loan associated
with attending an institution or a program at an institution if the
institution or program closes and the Secretary or other authorized
Department official has determined that, based on the most recent
reliable data for an institution or program, the institution or program
has not satisfied, for at least a year, an accountability standard
based on student's outcomes for determining that institution or
program's eligibility for title IV funds. Under proposed Sec. Sec.
30.87(a)(2)(i) and (ii) the Secretary may also waive the entire
outstanding balance of a loan associated with attending a closed
institution or a closed program at an institution if the institution or
program failed to deliver sufficient financial value to students and is
the subject of a Departmental action that remains unresolved at the
time of that institution or program's closure, in whole or in part, on
certain conduct specified in regulation.
Currently, proposed Sec. 30.87(a)(2)(i) also includes the
following language: ``this paragraph applies to
[[Page 27582]]
circumstances when the institution or program has lost accreditation at
least in part due to such activities.'' The intent of the consensus
language was to clarify that the underlying finding that supports the
Department's determination that an institution or program failed to
deliver sufficient financial value under proposed Sec. 30.87(a)(2)(i)
could be a finding made by the Department or it could be a finding made
by an accreditor that terminated accreditation based at least in part
on that finding. Since the committee reached consensus on the language
included in 30.87, the Department has included it in these proposed
regulations. However, the Department believes that the intent could be
stated more clearly as: ``The institution or program has failed to
deliver sufficient financial value to students, including in situations
where either (A) the Department has determined that the institution or
program has engaged in substantial misrepresentations, substantial
omissions, misconduct affecting student eligibility, or other similar
activities; or (B) the Department has determined that the accrediting
agency has terminated its accreditation based at least in part upon a
finding that the institution or program has engaged in the activities
described in (A).'' The Department invites comments on this possible
change.
Under proposed Sec. 30.87(b), a waiver under this section would
apply to a borrower's loans received for attending that institution or
program during the period that corresponds with the findings or
outcomes data. Proposed Sec. 30.87(c) would provide that in the case
of Federal Consolidation Loans and Direct Consolidation Loans, the
Secretary would waive the portion of the outstanding balance of the
consolidation loan attributable to such loan received for attending
that institution or program during the period that corresponds with the
findings or outcomes data.
Institutions or programs that close where the Secretary determined
that the institution or program has not satisfied an accountability
standard based on student outcomes would include institutions that fail
or failed to meet the CDR standards prescribed in 34 CFR part 668,
subpart N and programs that do not lead to Gainful Employment
prescribed in 34 CFR part 668, subpart S. An institution or program
that failed to deliver sufficient financial value to students would
include an institution or program that engaged in: substantial
misrepresentations, substantial omissions, misconduct affecting student
eligibility, or circumstances around loss of accreditation associated
with such activities. The Department would predicate this determination
through a program review, investigation, or any other action that
remains unresolved at the time of closure and that action as based in
whole or in part to the aforementioned misconduct.
Waivers of Federal student loan debt under proposed Sec. 30.87
would apply to actions the Department has taken as soon as one year
after the institution or program has not satisfied an accountability
standard based on student outcomes. This provision would also apply to
an institution or program failing to deliver sufficient financial value
to students and was the subject to a program review, investigation, or
any other Department action that remains unresolved at the time of
closure and that action was based, in whole or in part, on such
conduct.
Under these proposed regulations, we would not assess liabilities
against the institution as a result of the Secretary waiving a
borrower's Federal student loan debt. As such, institutions would not
be subject to any request to repay funds waived under this provision.
Reasons: Similar to proposed Sec. 30.86, the Department seeks to
capture circumstances where an institution or program failed
accountability standards based on student outcomes. The main difference
between this provision and Sec. 30.86 is that Sec. 30.87 captures
situations in which an institution or program chooses to close before
the action becomes final and could be considered under Sec. 30.86. The
Department is proposing a separate section to address situations where
an institution or program has closed because we have seen past
situations where programs or institutions fail accountability measures
and voluntarily close, and the closure leaves the Department with
insufficient data to conduct a final agency action. The same is true of
situations in which the Department begins an investigation or program
review related to whether the institution or program is providing
sufficient financial value, but the institution or program chooses to
close before that investigation or program review is finished. When
that occurs, the Department may not finish those processes. In the
circumstances described above, the Department believes that it would be
reasonable for the Secretary to infer that in the absence of additional
data or completion of program review or investigation that the
Department would have terminated aid access going forward and the
borrower would be eligible for a waiver. In other words, we do not hold
borrowers responsible for the Department's inability to obtain
necessary additional information. Institutions and programs, meanwhile,
are not affected by this inference because they have ceased
participation in the title IV programs and would not face any
liabilities from these waivers.
While Sec. 30.87 is designed to provide parity with the waivers in
Sec. 30.86 so that a borrower is not made worse off because a school
decided to close, this provision would not cover all borrowers enrolled
at the school at the time of closure. Because the institution closed,
borrowers who did not complete and were enrolled at or just before the
date of closure would be eligible for a closed school discharge.
Some examples highlight the differences between Sec. 30.86 and
Sec. 30.87 that necessitate a separate section. In general,
institutions are subject to loss of eligibility to participate in the
Direct Loan \44\ and Pell Grant \45\ programs if that institution's CDR
is equal to or greater than 30 percent for each of its three most
recent cohort fiscal years. An institution that voluntarily closes to
avoid loss of eligibility due to a high CDR would not face sanctions,
but those students could still be repaying loans incurred for
attendance in what would otherwise be an ineligible institution.
Proposed Sec. 30.87 would cover such instances if an institution or
program voluntarily closes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Section 435(a)(2) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1085(a)(2)).
\45\ Section 401(j) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1070a(j)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has encountered situations in the past during
oversight and compliance measures over institutions and programs where
those institutions or programs choose to close before further reviews
can be completed. During program reviews, investigations, or other
actions, institutions would voluntarily close the institution or
program rather than face the consequences of sanctions. Borrowers
enrolled at those institutions or programs who did not continue their
postsecondary education would be eligible for a closed school loan
discharge if the institution closed. But a borrower who completed their
program during this period would not be eligible for a closed school
discharge. A borrower who graduated, meanwhile, may also not be able to
raise a successful defense to repayment claim based on the specific
factual circumstances. This provision would provide an alternative path
to relief where the Department has sufficient evidence to determine the
institution or
[[Page 27583]]
program did not provide sufficient financial value.
This waiver would operate in a manner separate and distinct from
closed school loan discharges. The idea behind closed school loan
discharges is to provide relief to borrowers who are left with loan
debt and are unable to complete their programs. That is why closed
school loan discharges are unavailable to borrowers who graduated. By
contrast, the purpose of this waiver is to provide relief to borrowers
who did not get the benefit of the bargain of postsecondary education
in the sense that their institution or program did not meet required
student outcomes standards or failed to provide sufficient financial
value, but it closed prior to the final agency action that would have
made that determination. The underlying reason for the waiver and for
why relief would be appropriate are different from the reason for
closed school discharges. Negotiators expressed support for this
provision during negotiated rulemaking sessions.
One negotiator encouraged us to also include an institution or
program's loss of accreditation as a condition of waiving Federal
student loan debt under this section. In response, the Department
concurred and incorporated in proposed Sec. 30.87(a)(2)(i)
circumstances when the institution or program loses accreditation as a
basis for waiving Federal student loan debt.
Similar to Sec. 30.86, this provision would only provide waivers
to borrowers who took out loans during the period used to measure
student outcomes or for the program review or investigation. For
example, if an institution had a high CDR for borrowers who entered
repayment in 2019 and then closed, the Department would waive loans
taken to attend that institution for borrowers in that repayment
cohort. Borrowers whose loans are not included in those periods would
not receive a waiver.
The Committee reached consensus on proposed Sec. 30.87.
Sec. 30.88 Waiver for closed Gainful Employment (GE) programs with
high debt-to-earnings rates or low median earnings.
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides
that in the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers
and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary may enforce, pay,
compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand,
however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Under proposed Sec. 30.88(a), the Secretary
may waive the entire outstanding balance of a loan received by a
borrower associated with enrollment in a GE program if the following
conditions are met: the program or institution closed; the GE program
was not a professional medical or dental program; and, for a period in
which the borrower received loans for enrollment in the GE program, the
Secretary has reliable and available data demonstrating that title IV
recipients in the GE program failed the debt-to-earnings rates or
earnings premium measure described in Sec. 30.88(a)(3).
For purposes of a waiver under Sec. 30.88(a)(3)(i), the GE program
would be considered failing if that program had a debt-to-earnings rate
greater than 8 percent of their median annual earnings and 20 percent
of their median discretionary income. Discretionary earnings would be
calculated as median annual earnings minus 150 percent of the Federal
Poverty Guideline for a single individual for the measurement year.
Denominators of either measures that are zero or negative would be
considered a failure if the numerator is a non-zero number. A GE
program would also be considered failing if it fails the earnings
premium measure described in Sec. 30.88(a)(3)(ii). For the earnings
premiums measure, a GE program would be considered failing if the
median annual earnings of GE program graduates are equal to or less
than the median annual earnings for typical high school graduates in
the labor force (i.e., either working or unemployed) between the ages
of 25-34. The median annual earnings would be compared to the high
school graduates in the State in which the institution is located, or
nationally in the case of a GE program at a foreign school, or if fewer
than 50 percent of the students in the GE program are from the State
where the institution is located.
Under proposed Sec. 30.88(b), a GE program would be identified by
its six-digit Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) code, the
institution's six-digit Office of Postsecondary Education ID (OPEID)
number and the program's credential level. If the Department does not
have reliable and available data at the GE program's six-digit CIP
code, it would use the four-digit CIP code. The Department would
calculate the annual loan payment by determining the median loan debt
of students who completed the GE program during the applicable cohort
and amortizing that debt based upon the average of the Direct
Unsubsidized Loan interest rates based on the applicable credential
level and the years preceding the completion year.
Additionally, under proposed Sec. 30.88(c), the Secretary may
waive loans received for enrollment in a GE program if the institution
closed, and the institution received a majority of its title IV funds
for GE programs for which the Department could calculate debt-to-
earnings rates and earnings premium measures, and the Department was
unable to calculate measures for that program.
Proposed Sec. 30.88(d) would provide that in the case of Federal
Consolidation Loans and Direct Consolidation Loans, the Secretary
waives the portion of the outstanding balance of the consolidation loan
attributable to such loan received for attending that GE program in the
corresponding period for which the Secretary is waiving those
borrowers' Federal student loan debt.
Reasons: The Department published final regulations related to GE
to address ongoing concerns about educational programs that are
supposed to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized
occupation but that instead leave them with unaffordable amounts of
student loan debt in relation to their earnings, or with no gain in
earnings compared to others with no more than a high school
education.\46\ Going forward, if a program fails to meet the standards
required of the GE rates, borrowers may be eligible for waivers under
either Sec. 30.86 or Sec. 30.87. However, the Department is also
concerned about circumstances in which it has evidence that a program
is failing to meet the GE standards and the program closes. Such
situations may not result in a waiver under Sec. 30.87 even though the
Department knows that the borrowers included in the metrics are facing
challenges similar to those where programs formally fail the measures
once and then close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ 88 FR 70004 (October 10, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provisions in Sec. 30.88 particularly would address situations
where there have been data showing failures of GE metrics, but they are
not necessarily official rates, and the program has closed. For
example, during rulemaking processes to establish GE regulations, the
Department released debt-to-earnings rates about programs across the
country. In January 2017,\47\ the Department also produced a round of
official rates under the 2014 GE final rule \48\ but did not publish
subsequent GE rates under those rules. In response to these rates some
institutions preemptively closed programs that did
[[Page 27584]]
not meet the standards. The Department believes it is important to
provide a waiver in these situations because these metrics show similar
concerns about the potential that a borrower may be unable to
successfully repay their loans. We believe it is reasonable to draw an
inference in favor of the borrower since the program closed and there
will not be other data available showing the longer-term performance of
the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See January 17, 2017 Gainful Employment Electronic
Announcement #100--Upcoming Release of Final Gainful Employment
Debt-to-Earnings (D/E) Rates.
\48\ 79 FR 64890 (October 31, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the proposed waiver in Sec. 30.88 would only be available
when an institution or program closes, it is distinct from closed
school discharge. The purpose of a closed school discharge is to
provide relief to a borrower who is unable to complete their program.
That is why it excludes graduates from eligibility. By contrast, this
proposed waiver would provide relief to borrowers where data shows that
the typical borrower who took out loans is not getting the benefit of
the bargain. The purpose of the closure requirement is to address how
the Department would handle situations where it does not have, and has
no way to obtain, additional data that would otherwise be needed to
take a final agency action and deny continued title IV participation if
the institution or program were to continue to fail the metrics. This
section establishes how the Department would go about drawing an
inference in favor of the borrower to determine that they did not
receive the benefit of the bargain.
Because the circumstances addressed in proposed Sec. 30.88 are not
ones where the Department would calculate official GE rates, we have
crafted a framework to explain how the Secretary would otherwise assess
a GE program's debt-to-earnings rates and earnings premium measure for
purposes of this section.
In Sec. 30.88(a)(2) the Department explains that we would not
apply this section to GE medical or dental programs. These are GE
programs identified as Doctor of Medicine (MD), Doctor of Osteopathy
(DO), or Doctor of Dental Science (DDS) based upon their level and CIP
code. We propose to not include those programs here because in past
versions of the GE regulations we have said that students in these
programs would have had their earnings evaluated after a longer time
following graduation than other types of programs. The Department does
not have data for this longer measurement period so we cannot
accurately assess these GE programs.
Section 30.88(a)(3) describes how the Department would calculate
whether a program fails to meet GE standards. These definitions for
debt-to-earnings and earnings premium are all modeled on how the
Department proposes to calculate these measures in the recently
finalized GE regulation.\49\ The definitions for debt-to-earnings rates
are also similar to what was used in the GE regulations finalized in
2014.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 88 FR 70004 (October 10, 2023).
\50\ 79 FR 64890 (October 31, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provisions in Sec. 30.88(b) provide greater detail related to
how the Department would identify programs as well as how we would
calculate typical earnings and debt payments. In Sec. 30.88(b)(1), we
propose identifying GE programs by the six-digit CIP code level, or at
the four-digit CIP code if we did not have data available. We propose
this to mirror the definition of a GE program defined in 34 CFR 668.2.
We more fully explain in the 2023 GE final rule \51\ our analysis of
data coverage and our basis for assessing GE programs at the six-digit
CIP code and, where appropriate, the four-digit CIP code to meet the
minimum n-size requirements for GE metrics. This approach also
recognizes the data limitations that exist related to past data used to
assess GE programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 88 FR 70035, 70127 (October 10, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other provisions of Sec. 30.88(b) similarly reflect choices made
and explained in greater detail in the 2023 GE final rule. This
includes how we would calculate the annual loan payment and calculate
median annual earnings.
The language in proposed Sec. 30.88(c) addresses circumstances
where borrowers attended programs that did not have GE results
calculated at an institution that has since closed. It proposes to
provide relief to students who borrowed to enroll in a program at an
institution that closed in which, prior to the closure, the institution
received a majority of its title IV, HEA funds from programs that met
the conditions under proposed Sec. 30.88(a)(3) and there were no
metrics calculated for that program. Because the majority of the title
IV, HEA funds received by the institution went to failing programs, the
Secretary could reasonably infer that the title IV, HEA funds that went
to other programs for which there were insufficient data would have
likely failed, as well, and such borrowers should be granted relief.
Loans from programs at such an institution where we did have data
showing the program did not fail the GE metrics would not result in a
waiver.
Finally, Sec. 30.88(d) clarifies that if the conditions of the
waiver are met and the loan was repaid by a Federal Direct
Consolidation Loan or a Direct Consolidation Loan that has an
outstanding balance, the Department would waive the portion of the
outstanding balance of the consolidation loan attributable to such
loan. We believe that it is logical to waive the only underlying loan
associated with this waiver that was part of a consolidation loan.
Borrowers who otherwise consolidated their loans would have a pathway
toward this waiver and would not have their chances at a waiver
foreclosed because of the consolidation.
The Committee reached consensus on proposed Sec. 30.88. The
Department has made one clarifying technical change to this language in
paragraph (a)(2) to change the word ``this'' to ``the program.''
Part 682--Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program
Subpart D--Administration of the Federal Family Education Loan Programs
by a Guaranty Agency Waiver of FFEL Program Loan Debt (Sec. 682.403)
Statute: Section 432(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1082(a)) provides
that in the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers,
and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary may enforce, pay,
compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand,
however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 682.403(a) would outline the
procedures under which the Secretary may determine that a FFEL Program
loan held by a guaranty agency or a lender qualifies for a waiver of
all or a portion of the outstanding balance and the steps for providing
a waiver. Under proposed Sec. 682.403(a)(1), the Secretary would
notify the lender that a loan qualifies for a waiver and the lender
would submit a claim to the guaranty agency. The guaranty agency would
pay the claim, be reimbursed by the Secretary, and assign the loan to
the Secretary. After the loan is assigned, the Secretary would grant
the waiver. Proposed Sec. 682.403(a)(2) would define the terms ``the
lender'' and ``the guaranty agency'' for the purposes of waiver claims
under proposed Sec. 682.403.
Proposed Sec. 682.403(b) would specify the conditions under which
the Secretary waives FFEL Program loans held by a guaranty agency or a
lender. A FFEL Program loan would qualify for a waiver under one of the
following conditions--
The loan first entered repayment on or before July 1,
2000;
The borrower has not applied for, or not successfully
applied for, a closed
[[Page 27585]]
school discharge but otherwise meets the eligibility requirements for
the discharge; or
The loan was received for attendance at an institution
that lost its eligibility to participate in any title IV, HEA program
because of its CDR and the borrower was included in the cohort whose
debt was used to calculate the CDR or rates that were the basis for the
loss of eligibility.
Proposed Sec. 682.403(c) would provide that if the Secretary
determines that a loan qualifies for a waiver, the Secretary notifies
the lender and directs the lender to submit a waiver claim to the
applicable guaranty agency and to suspend collection activity, or
maintain a suspension of collection activity, on the loan.
Proposed Sec. 682.403(d) would describe the waiver claim
procedures. Under proposed Sec. 682.403(d)(1), the guaranty agency
would be required to establish and enforce standards and procedures for
the timely filing of waiver claims by lenders.
Proposed Sec. 682.403(d)(2) would require the lender to submit a
claim for the full outstanding balance of the loan to the guaranty
agency within 75 days of the date the lender received the notification
from the Secretary. Under proposed Sec. 682.403(d)(3), the lender
would be required to provide the guaranty agency with an original or a
true and exact copy of the promissory note and the notification from
the Secretary when filing a waiver claim. Proposed Sec. 682.403(d)(4)
would allow a lender to provide alternative documentation deemed
acceptable to the Secretary if the lender is not in possession of an
original or true and exact copy of the promissory note.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 682.403(d)(5) and (d)(6) would require the
guaranty agency to review the waiver claim and determine whether it
meets the applicable requirements. If the guaranty agency determines
that the claim meets the requirements specified in proposed Sec. Sec.
682.403(d)(3) and 682.403(d)(4) the guaranty agency would be required
to pay the claim within 30 days of the date the claim was received.
Under proposed Sec. 682.403(d)(7) the lender would be required to
return any payments received on the loan during the suspension of
collection activity or after receiving the claim payment to the sender.
Under proposed Sec. 682.403(d)(8) the Secretary would reimburse
the guaranty agency for the full amount of a claim paid to the lender
after the agency pays the claim to the lender. Proposed Sec.
682.403(d)(9)(i) would require the guaranty agency to assign the loan
to the Secretary within 75 days of the date the guaranty agency pays
the claim and receives the reimbursement payment. If the guaranty
agency is the loan holder, under proposed Sec. 682.403(d)(9)(ii) the
guaranty agency would be required to assign the loan on the date that
the guaranty agency receives the notice from the Secretary.
After the guaranty agency assigns the loan, the Secretary may waive
the borrower's obligation to repay up to the entire outstanding balance
of the loan, as provided under proposed Sec. 682.403(d)(10). After the
Secretary grants the waiver, under proposed Sec. 682.403(d)(11) the
Secretary would notify the borrower, the lender, and the guaranty
agency that the borrower's obligation to repay the debt or a portion of
the debt, has been waived.
Proposed Sec. 682.403(e)(1) would require a guaranty agency to
return any payments received on the loan during the suspension of
collection activity or after the guaranty agency assigned the loan to
the Secretary. The guaranty agency would also be required to notify the
borrower that there is no obligation to make payments on the loan
unless the borrower received a partial waiver or unless the Secretary
directs otherwise. Under proposed Sec. 682.403(e)(2), the guaranty
agency would remit to the Secretary any payments received after it has
notified the borrower. Under proposed Sec. 682.403(e)(3), if the
Secretary receives any payments on the loan after waiving the entire
outstanding balance on the loan, the Secretary would return these
payments to the sender.
Proposed Sec. 682.403(f) would provide that if the conditions for
a waiver specified in proposed Sec. 682.403(b) are met on a loan that
has been repaid by a Federal Consolidation Loan with an outstanding
balance, the Secretary may waive the portion of the outstanding balance
of the consolidation loan attributable to the loan that qualifies for
waiver once the loan has been assigned to the Secretary.
Reasons: The proposed regulations applicable to FFEL Program loans
held by a guaranty agency or lender are intended to mirror some of the
proposed regulations in 34 CFR part 30 that would apply to FFEL Program
loans held by the Department. Since no new FFEL Program loans have been
made on or after July 1, 2010, some of the provisions in part 30 that
would apply to Direct Loans are not applicable to FFEL Program loans.
Therefore, the proposed FFEL-only regulations are more limited than the
proposed regulations that would apply to all student loans held by the
Department.
In proposed Sec. 682.403(b)(1) the Department proposes to provide
a waiver for a FFEL loan that first entered repayment at least 25 years
ago. The Department proposes a different time in repayment requirement
for FFEL loans from what is in proposed Sec. 30.83 because the version
of IBR that is available in the FFEL program only provides forgiveness
after 25 years of payments. There is no forgiveness option after 20
years the way there is for Department-held loans.
The Department proposes to include Sec. 682.403(b)(1) because we
are concerned that borrowers who first entered repayment a long time
ago may not be able to repay their loans in a reasonable period. It
would come with full compensation for the outstanding balance to
lenders. The existence of repayment plans that provide forgiveness
after an extended period in repayment indicates Congress's concern with
borrowers being stuck in repayment for an unreasonable period of time
and reflects Congress's intent that borrowers have paths to relief, so
they are not stuck with their loans forever. We are concerned that many
borrowers with older loans have spent years, if not decades, in
repayment before being able to benefit from those options and might
otherwise be trapped by their debts until they pass away. We have
proposed applying this provision to loans that entered repayment on or
before the July 1, 2000, because these borrowers will have been in
repayment for all or part of 25 calendar years or more when the
regulation is implemented. This approach reflects the more limited data
the Department has in its possession about commercial FFEL borrowers.
We are proposing 25 years because FFEL borrowers have access to an
income driven repayment plan that provides forgiveness after 25 years.
Similar to proposed Sec. 30.83, this provision would only be exercised
once per borrower.
The Committee did not reach consensus on proposed Sec.
682.403(b)(1).
The Committee did reach consensus on proposed Sec. Sec.
682.403(b)(2) and 682.403(b)(3), which would provide waivers for FFEL
borrowers who qualify for, but have not received, a closed school
discharge and for borrowers who attended an institution that lost its
title IV eligibility due to high CDRs, if the borrower was included in
the cohort whose debt was used to calculate the CDRs that were the
basis for the loss of eligibility. Regarding waivers based on a
school's loss of title IV eligibility, the Department modified proposed
Sec. Sec. 682.403(b)(3) by adding clarifying language specifying that
the borrower's loan must have been in the cohort of
[[Page 27586]]
loans that resulted in the school losing title IV eligibility for a
borrower to qualify for a waiver under this provision.
The Department proposes waivers for closed school discharges
because that is a forgiveness opportunity that is available to FFEL
borrowers which we are concerned that many eligible borrowers do not
appear to be aware of and, as a result, may be unnecessarily struggling
with unaffordable loans. For example, a 2021 study by the Government
Accountability Office found that at least 42 percent of discharges from
2013 to 2021 were automatic discharges, indicating that a substantial
share of borrowers may not have been aware of the potential for
discharge or may have struggled with the application.\52\ Further, more
than half of borrowers who received an automatic discharge were in
default on their loans, and an additional 21 percent had experienced at
least one delinquency spell that lasted 90 days or longer.\53\
Exercising waivers in these situations would help borrowers who have a
high likelihood of being in default for loans that they should not have
to repay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ GAO-21-105373, COLLEGE CLOSURES: Many Impacted Borrowers
Struggled Financially Despite Being Eligible for Loan Discharges
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-105373.pdf.
\53\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department proposes to include waivers for borrowers who took
out loans that are captured in CDRs that led to institutional
ineligibility because we are concerned that when the Secretary cuts off
aid to an institution for this reason it is a sign that a borrower is
not getting the benefit of the bargain. This provision provides
equitable treatment for the borrowers whose results showed their loans
were not faring well with those who were protected after that point
because the institution was no longer eligible to participate in the
Federal student loan programs. One of the non-Federal negotiators urged
the Department to provide FFEL regulations that were robust, clear, and
detailed. The Department responded by providing detailed proposed FFEL
regulations outlining the waiver claims filing process for waivers
granted to FFEL borrowers whose loans are held by a private lender or a
guaranty agency. These proposed regulations are modeled on the
regulations in Sec. 682.402 governing other loan discharges in FFEL,
specifically the regulations governing total and permanent disability
(TPD) discharges. As with TPD discharges, the Department would make the
determination of eligibility, rather than the lender or the guaranty
agency before a claim is filed. The Department would then direct the
lender to file a claim with the guaranty agency. The claim would be for
the outstanding balance of the loan less any unpaid late fees and
unpaid collection costs. The process for filing and paying the claim
and assigning the loan to the Department would be essentially the same
process used for TPD discharge claims. In the case of a consolidation
loan, the claim would be for the outstanding principal and interest of
the consolidation loan, even if only a portion of the consolidation
loan qualifies for a waiver. After the guaranty agency pays the claim
and the Department reimburses the guaranty agency, the guaranty agency
assigns the consolidation loan to the Department. The Department would
then waive repayment on the portion of the consolidation loan
attributable to loans eligible for a waiver. This is consistent with
proposed Sec. 682.403(f) and several other provisions in these
proposed regulations that allow the Secretary to waive a portion of a
Federal Consolidation Loan (or, for Direct Loans, a Direct
Consolidation Loan) if one or more of the underlying loans qualifies
for a waiver. The Department would then resume collection on the
portion of the consolidation loan that was not waived.
The suspension of collection activity, which is generally
authorized for brief periods during which an application is submitted,
or a claim is filed, would be deemed to be a forbearance in cases where
payment resumes on the loan after it has been assigned to the
Secretary.
Once a FFEL Program loan is assigned to the Department, the
Department would be responsible for furnishing information about the
loan to consumer reporting agencies and would report the reduction or
elimination of the outstanding balance to consumer reporting agencies
after granting the waiver. Guaranty agencies and lenders would only be
responsible for reporting that the loan has been assigned to the
Department, as they currently do for TPD discharges.
During negotiated rulemaking, the Department proposed providing
more time for the claims process, giving 75 days for a lender to submit
a claim, and 75 days for the guaranty agency to pay the claim. The
Department believes that the timeframes are appropriate, since the
Department will have already determined that the borrower qualifies for
a waiver before notifying the lender. There would be no requirement
that the lender or guaranty agency conduct an additional review of
borrower eligibility. Therefore, the claims process would be entirely
administrative on the part of the lender and the guaranty agency. There
would be no need for a guaranty agency or lender to review an
application or to request additional information from a borrower, which
is sometimes the case with other loan discharges. However, the
Department acknowledges that initially there may be a large volume of
FFEL borrowers qualifying for the waivers specified in Sec. 682.403.
Therefore, we would work with guaranty agencies and lenders who may
have difficulty meeting these timeframes and be flexible in enforcing
the requirements in proposed Sec. Sec. 682.403(d)(2) and
682.403(d)(9).
The Committee did not reach consensus on the proposed regulations
in Sec. Sec. 682.403(a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) that would establish
the procedures for processing a waiver claim and stipulate that if the
conditions for a waiver are met on a loan that has been consolidated,
the Secretary would waive repayment of the portion of the consolidation
loan attributable to the loan that qualifies for waiver.
After the third negotiating session, the Department determined that
it would be appropriate to specify in regulation that, when filing a
waiver claim, a lender may provide alternative documentation in the
event that the lender does not possess the original promissory note or
a true and exact copy of the promissory note. This is consistent with
the Department's practice with regard to accepting alternative
documentation for loan assignments.
The Department also noted that the proposed regulations did not
address the treatment of payments received after the Department has
notified the lender that the loan qualifies for a waiver and before the
payment of a waiver claim. Therefore, the Department added proposed
language specifying that payments on the loan received during the
suspension of collection activity--which would occur at the start of
the waiver claim process--would be returned to the sender by either the
lender or by the guaranty agency, as applicable. The Department
believes that returning payments at this stage of the process is
appropriate, because the Department has already determined that the
borrower's loan qualifies for a waiver. Accepting payments
inadvertently submitted on a loan that may have its entire outstanding
balance waived would unnecessarily deprive the borrower of the payment
amounts submitted.
[[Page 27587]]
Executive Orders 12866 (as Modified by 14094) and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive Order and
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094, defines a ``significant regulatory
action'' as an action likely to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more
(adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of OIRA for changes in
gross domestic product), or adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or
Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would
meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the principles
stated in the Executive Order, as specifically authorized in a timely
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
This proposed regulatory action will have an annual effect on the
economy of $200 million or more. Table 4.1 in this RIA provides an
estimate of the net budget effects of each provision of this proposed
rule. We also provide estimates of the administrative costs for these
provisions. Because the net budget effect is larger than $200 million a
year, this proposed regulatory action is subject to review by OMB under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (as amended by Executive Order
14094). Notwithstanding this determination, we have assessed the
potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of
this proposed regulatory action and have determined that the benefits
will justify the costs.
We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing these proposed regulations only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those
approaches that in the Department's estimation best balance the size of
the estimated transfer and qualitative benefits and costs. Based on the
analysis that follows, the Department believes that these proposed
regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive Order
13563.
We have also determined that this regulatory action will not unduly
interfere with State, local, territorial, and Tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
As required by OMB Circular A-4, we compare the proposed
regulations to the current regulations. In this regulatory impact
analysis, we discuss the need for regulatory action, the summary of key
proposed provisions, potential costs and benefits, net budget impacts,
and the regulatory alternatives we considered.
Elsewhere in this section under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we
identify and explain burdens specifically associated with information
collection requirements.
1. Congressional Review Act Designation
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated that this
rule is covered under 5 U.S.C. 804(2) and (3).
2. Need for Regulatory Action
Postsecondary education is a critical pathway for entering and
succeeding in the middle class. Generally, earning a postsecondary
credential provides individuals with a range of personal benefits in
the labor market, including higher income and lower unemployment
risk.\54\ In addition to individual benefits related to earnings and
employment, additional education provides a host of individual benefits
including greater access to benefits like health insurance, increased
job satisfaction and overall happiness.\55\ Increasing levels of
postsecondary attainment also have spillover benefits for communities
and society that benefit those who never attended or completed
postsecondary education. For example, researchers have documented that
wages of non-college graduates rise when the supply of college
graduates increases.\56\ Increases in education is also linked to
higher civic participation, reduced crime, and improved health of
future generations.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Barrow, L. & Malamud, O. (2015). Is College a Worthwhile
Investment? Annual Review of Economics, 7(1), 519-555. Card, D.
(1999). The Causal Effect of Education on Earnings. Handbook of
Labor Economics, 3, 1801-1863.
\55\ Oreopoulos, P. & Salvanes, K.G. (2011). Priceless: The
Nonpecuniary Benefits of Schooling. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 25(1), 159-184.
\56\ Moretti, Enrico. ``Estimating the social return to higher
education: evidence from longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional
data.'' Journal of econometrics 121, no. 1-2 (2004): 175-212.
\57\ Currie, Janet, and Enrico Moretti. ``Mother's education and
the intergenerational transmission of human capital: Evidence from
college openings.'' The Quarterly journal of economics 118, no. 4
(2003): 1495-1532; Lochner, Lance, ``Nonproduction Benefits of
Education: Crime, Health, and Good Citizenship,'' in E. Hanushek, S.
Machin, and L. Woessmann (eds.), Handbook of the Economics of
Education, Vol. 4, Ch. 2, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science (2011); Ma,
Jennifer, and Matea Pender. Education Pays 2023: The Benefits of
Higher Education for Individuals and Society. Washington, DC:
College Board. Milligan, Kevin, Enrico Moretti, and Philip
Oreopoulos. ``Does education improve citizenship? Evidence from the
United States and the United Kingdom.'' Journal of public Economics
88, no. 9-10 (2004): 1667-1695.; Lochner, Lance, and Enrico Moretti.
``The effect of education on crime: Evidence from prison inmates,
arrests, and self-reports.'' American economic review 94, no. 1
(2004): 155-189.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The high price of postsecondary education, however, means that
large
[[Page 27588]]
shares of Americans seeking postsecondary credentials rely on Federal
student loans to pay for college.\58\ Though the rate of student
borrowing has declined slightly in recent years, there have been
appreciable changes in who borrows for college and how much debt they
have taken on over the last several decades.\59\ For instance, in the
early 1990s, approximately one-third of full-time undergraduates
received Federal student loans.\60\ Following the Great Recession, the
total dollar amount of annual student loan borrowing increased,
reaching a peak in the 2010-11 school year.\61\ These trends are shown
in Table 2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ According to 2022 Digest of Education Statistics (Table
331.10), 34.6 percent of undergraduates received Federal student
loans for the 2019-20 academic year.
\59\ Fry, Richard. ``The changing profile of student
borrowers.'' (2014). Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2014/10/07/the-changing-profile-of-student-borrowers/.
\60\ U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 2022. Table 331.60.
\61\ Ma, Jennifer and Matea Pender (2023), Trends in College
Pricing and Student Aid 2023, New York: College Board.
Table 2.1--Share of Full-Time Undergraduates Borrowing for College and Amount Borrowed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average amount Median amount
Share borrowing borrowed in given borrowed in given
Academic year federal loans % year (2019-20 year (2019-20
dollars) dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003-2004.............................................. 46 $7,419 $6,306
2007-2008.............................................. 52 9,101 6,804
2011-2012.............................................. 53 8,417 7,347
2015-2016.............................................. 50 8,643 7,017
2019-2020.............................................. 42 6,526 6,250
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Excludes Parent PLUS loans. Data comes from the 2016 and 2020 National Postsecondary Aid Study (available
at https://nces.ed.gov/datalab/powerstats/table/moxnjs and https://nces.ed.gov/datalab/powerstats/table/kwjatm kwjatm).
Federal student loans allow students and families who lack the
necessary funds to pay for postsecondary education with their current
resources to borrow money to pay for that education that can be repaid
using the earnings gains that come from obtaining a credential. While
this works out for many borrowers, too often Federal loans do not have
the intended result.
Student loan debt can add to the risk of going to college, because
students who experienced an income shock, had bad luck in the job
market, or went to a school that misled them about benefits can be
burdened by their loan debt obligations. For some borrowers, the extent
of debt needed to finance a credential is more than they can sustain
from the earnings gains they obtained. These borrowers may see some
returns from their education, but they aren't sufficient to repay their
debt in a reasonable timeframe.
Many borrowers with lower incomes or who are otherwise financially
vulnerable, such as retirees and those who have reported challenges
making ends meet, have struggled to meet their student loan
payments.\62\ Student loan payment challenges are also commonly faced
by borrowers who do not complete their credentials. An estimated 40
percent of borrowers who began postsecondary education in 2012 had
student debt, but did not have a degree five years later.\63\
Individuals with greater educational attainment tend to have higher
earnings, and borrowers who do not complete their educational programs
are particularly likely to have poor labor market outcomes.\64\
Borrowers with debt but no degree can be in a situation where they
borrowed in anticipation of degree-boosted earnings, but instead need
to manage loan payments without such wage gains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/student-debt-weighed-heavily-on-millions-even-before-pandemic.html; https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/frbp/assets/consumer-finance/reports/cfi-sl-1-payments-resumption.pdf; https://www.aarp.org/money/credit-loans-debt/info-2021/student-debt-crisis-for-older-americans.html.
\63\ https://nces.ed.gov/datalab/powerstats/table/Lcvndq.
\64\ Looney, Adam and Constantine Yannelis. ``A Crisis in
Student Loans? How Changes in the Characteristics of Borrowers and
in the Institutions they Attended Contributed to Rising Loan
Defaults.'' Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2015; Ma,
Jennifer, and Matea Pender. Education Pays 2023: The Benefits of
Higher Education for Individuals and Society. Washington, DC:
College Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through other actions, the Department is working to make certain
that students gain value from their postsecondary education. For
instance, the Department published final Financial Value Transparency
and Gainful Employment rules in 2023 that aim to protect borrowers from
career-training programs that do not provide sufficient financial value
for their graduates and to better inform all families about the
financial returns they could expect from programs.\65\ Those actions
are forward looking, however, and do not address some of the challenges
faced by students in the past. For example, once fully implemented, the
2023 Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment rules will
rely on outcomes data from previous students to prevent future students
from using federal aid for programs where students are unlikely to be
able to afford their debt payments. However, while future students will
gain protection, past students whose experiences were documented have
limited avenues for relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ 88 FR 70004 (October 10, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The potential debt relief contemplated in this proposed rule could
help some borrowers who receive relief to better afford necessities,
prepare for retirement, invest in other assets, and safeguard against
financial shocks. This relief may also help guard against a ``chilling
effect'' on postsecondary attainment, as prospective students may avoid
higher education due to the negative consequences of debt experienced
by many middle-income and low-income borrowers. And if students decide
not to attend higher education because they are worried about the risk
related to student loans, then communities, and the country clearly
will miss out on the aforementioned benefits that increasing levels of
postsecondary education brings, including higher economic growth,
higher civic participation, reduced crime, and improved health.
Challenges with repaying Federal student loans manifest in several
ways in broader trends within the portfolio. Prior to the start of the
national pause on student loan interest, repayment, and collections in
2020, about one million borrowers a year defaulted on their Federal
student loans for the first
[[Page 27589]]
time.\66\ While some of these borrowers will successfully exit default,
many others will likely remain in default for years if not decades.
According to analysis of the Department's internal data, as of the end
of 2020, there were about 1.5 million borrowers with ED-held loans in
default who had been in that status for at least nine years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ https://studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/DLEnteringDefaults.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed regulations would permit the Secretary to provide
relief to borrowers in the form of waiving some or all of the
outstanding balance of a loan. The Secretary could provide this relief
to borrowers where collection is not in the interest of the Department
because certain borrowers would not otherwise have access to relief
that is appropriate under the circumstances. In some cases, the
proposed relief aligns to changes in the student loan programs that
have recognized the necessity of relief, but where such changes took
effect after the point at which many borrowers obtained their loans.
These subsequent changes implicate considerations of equity and
fairness, as well as the low likelihood of a borrower repaying the loan
in a reasonable time period, and the costs of enforcing the debt which
are not justified by the expected benefits of continued collection.
The proposed rules address several distinct situations where the
Department believes the use of waiver is appropriate. Though a borrower
may qualify for a waiver under multiple provisions, each of these
proposed regulatory sections is distinct and separate from the other.
One section of the proposed rule would address situations where
borrowers have loan balances that exceed what they originally borrowed.
This provision would address the problem of prior excess interest
accrual and capitalization, which the Department has considered at
length.\67\ The Department has addressed these problems going forward
through the SAVE repayment plan that limits the accrual of unpaid
interest when borrowers make their required payments, as well as
separate regulatory changes that eliminated all non-statutory
capitalization events starting July 1, 2023.\68\ But these new policies
do not provide relief to borrowers with years or even decades of
accrued interest, and such borrowers continue to experience the harms
of excess interest as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See, e.g., 88 FR 43820, 43851 (July 10, 2023).
\68\ Id.; 87 FR 65904, 65957 (November 1, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any loan subject to interest requires a borrower to repay more than
the original balance of the loan. For example, a $10,000 loan with a
five percent interest that is repaid over 10 years would result in
total payments of just over $12,700. However, when a borrower's
outstanding balance exceeds what they originally borrowed, they will
need to pay significantly more to retire their debts than they would
have under the repayment schedule they had at the start of repayment.
This can extend the borrower's time in repayment, including the
possibility that a loan is never repaid. As the Department has noted in
prior regulatory actions that address interest accrual and
capitalization going forward, borrowers whose balances have grown
excessively may experience additional psychological and financial
barriers to repayment and be more likely to fall into delinquency or
default.\69\ Since the new policies reflected in the SAVE plan do not
address prior balance growth, many borrowers with years of accrued
interest face the negative effects of excess interest accrual. Indeed,
many comments that the Department received in July 2023 when the
Department solicited input from the public at the start of the student
debt relief negotiated rulemaking process, similarly shared that
balance growth has negative psychological effects on repayment. Many
borrowers expressed that they felt that having unanticipated balances
that far exceeded what they had originally borrowed made it impossible
to ever repay their loans and indicated that they would be better able
to afford their debts if balances could be brought down to the amount
they originally borrowed and expected to repay. Borrowers who spoke
during the public comment periods provided during negotiated rulemaking
sessions reiterated these concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See, e.g. 88 FR 43820, 43951 (July 10, 2023); 88 FR 1894,
1905 (January 11, 2023); 87 FR 41878 (July 13, 2022), 41919; 87 FR
65904, 65957 (November 1, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rules contain a separate section that focuses on loans
that first entered repayment a long time ago and are still outstanding.
Under the standard repayment plan borrowers repay their debt over 10
years by making equal monthly installments. More recently, borrowers
have increasingly turned to IDR plans that provide forgiveness after
either 20 or 25 years when the borrower makes payments that are largely
driven by their income and family size. As a result, essentially every
borrower has access to a repayment option that allows them to be debt-
free by some point between 10 and 25 years of repayment.
Unfortunately, many borrowers see their loans persist long past
these points. Many of these borrowers have spent considerable time in
default where they are already subject to powerful collection tools
that can result in the garnishment of wages, seizure of tax refunds,
negative credit reporting, and even litigation. Analysis of Department
data reveals that among borrowers who entered repayment over 25 years
ago and whose loans are still outstanding, 74 percent have been in
default at some point, while among borrowers whose loans matured over
20 years ago, 64 percent have been in default at some point. Analysis
by the Urban Institute suggested that of borrowers who took out loans
before 1990 and who still had debt recorded on their consumer report in
2018, 16 percent were in default on some or all of their student debt
as of 2018.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Blagg, Kristin. (2020) When Student Loans Linger:
Characteristics of Borrowers Who Hold Loans Over Multiple Decades.
Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/101492/when_student_loans_linger.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borrowers with older loans also would not have initially been
eligible for the significant number of additional benefits created for
borrowers over the last several years. The presence of these benefits,
such as reduced payments and shorter timelines to forgiveness, may have
helped many of these borrowers better manage their debt and retire it
sooner.
Furthermore, loans that have been in repayment for a long time tend
to be held by older borrowers who are closer to or beyond retirement
age, at which point their income may decline. Analysis of Department
data reveals that among borrowers who entered repayment 20 years ago
and whose loans are still outstanding, the median borrower age was 54
years, and 64 percent are older than the age of 50.
[[Page 27590]]
A different provision of the proposed rule addresses the challenge
where borrowers continue to repay loans even though, if they applied,
they would be eligible to have their debts forgiven, either through one
of the IDR plans or targeted forgiveness opportunities authorized by
the HEA, such as PSLF. Historically, the Department has seen that
borrowers frequently are not aware of the steps they need to take to
get relief and end up making payments or put themselves at avoidable
risk of default and delinquency. For example, for years, the Department
had a data match with the Social Security Administration that
identified borrowers who were eligible for a total and permanent
disability discharge. Despite being told they were eligible, hundreds
of thousands of borrowers did not apply.
In 2021, the Department changed its regulations to automatically
provide a discharge to borrowers identified as eligible for this
benefit through this match. This included an option for borrowers to
opt out. As a result, 323,000 borrowers received discharges for the
first time when the Department re-ran this match with the new policy
and thousands more continue to be approved for automatic relief each
quarter.\71\ Policies like the automatic discharges based upon the SSA
match show the importance of using approaches that grant forgiveness to
borrowers without requiring them to find out about benefits and apply,
one of the key goals behind this proposed provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/over-323000-federal-student-loan-borrowers-receive-58-billion-automatic-total-and-permanent-disability-discharges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, a substantial share of borrowers fail to or delay
recertifying their income for purposes of an IDR plan after their first
year in the plan, even when it appears that remaining on IDR would
benefit them financially.\72\ Transaction costs and lack of
information, among other factors, can negatively impact take-up of
public and social programs. This is not unique to student loans, as
evidenced from a wide variety of programs such as those related to food
and income supports also demonstrate that not all who can benefit
actually sign up.\73\ However, take-up of social programs can be
increased by reducing administrative costs and burdens, including by
having automatic enrollment.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Herbst, Daniel. ``The impact of income-driven repayment on
student borrower outcomes.'' American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics 15, no. 1 (2023): 1-25.; Conkling, Thomas S., and Christa
Gibbs. ``Borrower experiences on income-driven repayment.'' Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau Office of Research Reports Series 19-10
(2019).
\73\ See the review in Ko & Moffit (2022). Take-up of Social
Benefits. NBER Working Paper 30148. Also see various articles in
``Administrative Burdens and Inequality in Policy Implementation''
Part I and Part II in RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of
the Social Sciences, volume 9, issues 4 and 5, 2023.
\74\ Currie, Janet (2006). The Take-up of Social Benefits. In
Public Policy and the Income Distribution. Russell Sage Foundation.
Herd & Moynihan (2018). Administrative Burdens. Russell Sage
Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, there are many borrowers who received loans to attend
programs or institutions that lost access to the title IV, HEA programs
after those programs or institutions failed to meet required
accountability standards, failed to deliver sufficient financial value,
or closed during the process to determine whether the institution or
program should lose access to title IV aid for those reasons. In these
situations, the Department or other entities took action to protect
borrowers and taxpayers from the harms caused by these programs or
institutions. However, students who borrowed to enroll in programs or
institutions that later lost access to the title IV, HEA programs and
whose experiences were captured in the outcomes measures that lead to
such protection, are still left to repay the debt.
The Department is concerned that requiring such borrowers to
continue to repay their debts puts them at increased risk of default
and delinquency due to the identified flaws at the program or
institution. For example, the recent Financial Value Transparency and
Gainful Employment regulations (88 FR 70004) (2023 GE rule) protect
students from financial harm that can come about if they attend a
Gainful Employment program that consistently produces graduates with
very low earnings or earnings that are too low to repay typical debt.
If the experience of borrowers upon which those failing outcome
measures are based are used to support cutting off future title IV aid
to the institution, then those borrowers who attended these failing
programs should also receive similar protections.
The Department believes that these proposed regulations would
appropriately address the challenging situations outlined above that
can affect the likelihood that a borrower repays their loan in a
reasonable timeframe. Through these targeted and distinct exercises of
waiver the Department would deliver relief to borrowers who need the
assistance, while continuing to collect from borrowers who are able to
repay.
Summary of Proposed Key Provisions
Table 2.2 below summarizes the proposed provisions in the NPRM. It
does not include technical changes.
Table 2.2--Summary of Proposed Key Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of
Provision Regulatory section proposed provision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Federal Claims Sec. Indicate the
Collections Standards (FCCS). 30.70(a)(1)(c)(1). Secretary may use
the FCCS
standards to
determine whether
to compromise a
debt.
Creation of a new subpart Sec. 30.80...... Create a new
related to waiver. section
identifying when
the Secretary may
waive Federal
student loan debt
owed to the
Department.
Waiver when current balance Sec. 30.81...... The Secretary may
exceeds the balance upon waive the amount
entering repayment for by which a loan's
borrowers on an income-driven current
repayment plan. outstanding
balance exceeds
the balance upon
entering
repayment for
borrowers in an
income-driven
repayment plan
whose income
falls at or below
certain
thresholds.
Waiver when the current balance Sec. 30.82...... The Secretary may
exceeds the balance upon waive the lesser
entering repayment. of $20,000 or the
amount by which a
loan's current
outstanding
balance exceeds
the balance upon
entering
repayment for
borrowers who do
not meet the
requirements of
Sec. 30.81.
Waiver when a loan first entered Sec. 30.83...... The Secretary may
repayment 20 or 25 years ago. waive outstanding
loan balances for
a loan that first
entered repayment
on or before July
1, 2000 or July
1, 2005,
depending on
whether a
borrower has
loans for
graduate study.
Waiver when a borrower is Sec. 30.84...... The Secretary may
eligible for forgiveness based waive outstanding
upon repayment plan. loan balances if
a borrower is not
enrolled in but
is otherwise
eligible for
forgiveness under
certain repayment
plans.
[[Page 27591]]
Waiver when a loan is eligible Sec. 30.85...... The Secretary may
for a targeted forgiveness waive the
opportunity. outstanding
balance of a loan
when the
Secretary
determines that a
borrower has not
successfully
applied for, but
otherwise meets
the eligibility
requirements for,
any loan
discharge,
cancellation, or
forgiveness
opportunity under
part 682 or 685.
Waiver based upon Secretarial Sec. 30.86...... The Secretary may
actions. waive the
outstanding
balance of a loan
if the
institution or
program has lost
access to title
IV, HEA programs
for reasons
stemming entirely
or in part to
failing
accountability
standards related
to student
outcomes or
failing to
deliver
sufficient
financial value.
Waiver following closures prior Sec. 30.87...... The Secretary may
to Secretarial actions. waive the
outstanding
balance of a loan
used to enroll in
a program or
institution that
failed to meet
required student
outcome measures
or which was
subject to an
unresolved
Department action
related to
failing to
provide
sufficient
financial value,
and the program
or institution
closed prior to
the finalization
of such actions.
Waiver for programs with high Sec. 30.88...... The Secretary may
debt-to-earnings rates or low waive the
median earnings. outstanding
balance of a loan
used to enroll in
a program or
institution that
closed and prior
to the closure
had unacceptably
high debt-to-
earnings rates or
median earnings
that failed to
exceed those of a
high school
graduate.
Waiver of commercial FFEL debts. Sec. 682.403.... Lays out
procedures for
paying claims to
FFEL loan holders
so the Secretary
may waive
commercial FFEL
loans that first
entered repayment
at least 25 years
ago, that are
eligible for a
closed school
loan discharge
where a borrower
has not
successfully
applied, or owed
by a borrower in
the cohort whose
debt was used to
calculate the
institution's
failing cohort
default rates
that resulted in
ineligibility for
title IV, HEA
programs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Discussion of Costs, Benefits and Transfers
Overall, the proposed rules would result in costs in the form of
transfers from the Federal Government to student loan borrowers. The
size of these transfers would vary based upon the regulatory provision
in question. The Department believes that these transfers provide
significant benefits to borrowers in the form of waiving their
obligation to repay some or all of their Federal student loan debt. The
Department would also see benefits from waivers granted as a result of
the provisions in these draft rules by preventing or reducing costly
collection on loans that are unlikely to be repaid in a reasonable
period. Similar benefits would accrue to private holders of loans from
the FFEL Program. Finally, the proposed rules would result in some
costs in the form of administrative expenses for the Department to
implement these provisions. When considering all these factors, the
Department believes that the benefits from these proposed rules
outweigh the costs. What follows is a discussion of costs, benefits,
and transfers for each of the distinct regulatory provisions.
Data Used in This RIA
This section describes the data used in the regulatory impact
analysis. To generate information about the expected number of
borrowers who would receive relief under these proposed rules, the
Department relied upon non-public records contained in the
administrative data the Department uses to administer the title IV, HEA
programs.
The primary data used in the RIA is a five percent random sample of
the Federal student loan portfolio with at least one open title IV, HEA
student loan as of December 31, 2023. We are using a random sample
including over two million borrowers, but we present all estimates in
the analyses below in terms of the full portfolio. The data we use for
modeling in the RIA are stored in the National Student Loan Data System
(NSLDS), maintained by the Department's Office of Federal Student Aid.
The Department determined that a sample of this size was appropriate to
provide reasonable estimates of the impact of the proposed regulation.
A sample of this size is also similar to what the Department uses in
budgeting modeling and the modeling of net budget impacts of its rules.
To provide context for data on which borrowers would be affected by
different provisions, Table 3.1 describes the characteristics of the
sample, which is representative of the student loan portfolio
overall.\75\ This sample is different from the one used to produce the
net budget impact described elsewhere in this RIA. A further
description of the sample used for cost modeling can be found in the
net budget impact section of this RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ We use a random sample of borrowers where sample
descriptive statistics match those of the full portfolio.
Table 3.1--Characteristics of Borrowers in the Sample Used To Estimate
the Effects of This Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share of Federal Student Loan Borrowers Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans.......................... 9
Ever Received a Pell Grant *........................ 62
Ever Had a Default.................................. 27
Age <30............................................. 31
Age 30-50........................................... 49
Age 50+............................................. 20
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad... 44
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad........... 35
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School............. 19
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years.................. 47
[[Page 27592]]
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10-20 Years................ 33
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years.................. 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Based on five percent random sample of Federal student loan
borrowers. All numbers are rounded. Highest level enrolled is sourced
from loan data for the academic level for which the student borrowed;
unless otherwise specified, this could include borrowers who have
exited school, and also students in school.
* Pell Grant status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered
repayment on their last loan before 1999. As such, these figures may
understate the share of borrowers who are Pell Grant recipients.
To understand repayment outcomes for a constant set of borrowers
over time, we also use a random sample of borrowers who had their last
Federal student loan mature in 2012 and follow these borrowers for 10
years to understand repayment trends.\76\ By 2023, some borrowers in
this sample have paid down their loans, but a substantial share still
have a loan balance. These data provide a perspective of repayment
progress for the length of the standard repayment plan, which is 10
years. These data also come from the NSLDS maintained by the
Department's Federal Student Aid office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ This comparison is based on historical data, which may be
different than future trends, which is a necessary tradeoff to
consider medium- or long-term repayment trajectories for borrowers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it uses an income limit, for analyses of eligibility
related to Sec. Sec. 30.81, these data were supplemented with publicly
available data from the U.S. Census Bureau, which we used to impute
information about borrower incomes based on individuals with similar
demographic and educational characteristics from Census data.\77\ For
analyses related to Sec. 30.85, data from NSLDS was supplemented with
publicly available data on closed schools from Federal Student Aid's
website.\78\ For analyses related to Sec. Sec. 30.86, 30.87, and
30.88, data from NSLDS was supplemented with publicly available data
from the ``2022 Program Performance Data'' that was released by the
Department with the 2023 GE rule and historical cohort default rate
(CDR) data.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Because imputed income is an approximation, we also
estimate the number of borrowers who could be eligible, regardless
of income. To the extent that a larger or smaller number of
borrowers qualify under Sec. 30.81 because of income, then the
number of borrowers that qualified under Sec. 30.82 would decline
or increase by the equivalent number.
\78\ As of February 15, 2024. Available at https://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/PEPS/closedschools.html.
\79\ The 2022 Program Performance Data is available for download
at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/05/19/2023-09647/financial-value-transparency-and-gainful-employment-ge-financial-responsibility-administrative, historical cohort default rate data
is available at: https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/topics/default-management/archived-press-packages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers for Each Proposed Regulatory
Section
The sections that follow contain a discussion of the costs,
benefits, and transfers for the different proposed regulatory
provisions if the Secretary chooses to grant waivers under such
provisions. Each of these provisions would include administrative costs
for the Department to implement these changes. Because these
administrative costs generally represent baseline expenses that would
occur in order to implement any one of these provisions, we provide a
separate discussion of administrative costs at the end of this part of
the RIA.
Sec. 30.81 Waiver when the current balance exceeds the balance
upon entering repayment for borrowers on an IDR plan.
The proposed rules would result in costs in the form of transfers
from the Department to IDR borrowers in the form of waiving the amount
of accrued interest and capitalized interest on an outstanding loan.
Waiving these amounts would reduce future payments by borrowers to the
Department. They would also create administrative costs for the
Department to implement, which are discussed at the very end of this
subsection of the RIA.
The extent of transfers and their associated cost would vary
significantly depending on the borrower and their repayment experience.
The cost of such transfers for borrowers enrolled in an IDR plan would
be small in many cases. IDR plans offer forgiveness for borrowers after
a set number of monthly payments (typically either 240 or 300 payments,
though the SAVE plan can provide forgiveness after as few as 120
payments). Prior to the creation of the SAVE plan, a borrower whose IDR
payment was insufficient to cover all the accumulating interest was
likely to see their outstanding balance grow beyond what they
originally borrowed. That is because borrowers were responsible for all
unpaid interest, except for what accumulated on a subsidized loan for
the first three consecutive years in repayment; or if they were on
REPAYE, they would be responsible for 50 percent of interest not
covered on the monthly payment for the first three years of repayment
for unsubsidized loans and all periods beyond the first three years of
repayment for all loan types.
In the final rule that created the SAVE plan, the Department
estimated that 70 percent of borrowers on IDR had monthly payments that
did not cover the full amount of accumulating interest.\80\ For
example, a borrower who originally took out $30,000 in unsubsidized
loans at a five percent interest rate could see as much as $30,000 in
accumulated interest forgiven at the end of 20 years if they had a $0
monthly payment for that whole period. That means significant portions
of the amounts being waived under these regulations are likely to be
forgiven later in repayment anyway. The remaining portion that was
likely to be repaid would represent a transfer from the Department to
borrowers. That said, borrowers still receive a benefit from having
these amounts waived now instead of being forgiven later. The
Department received numerous public comments from borrowers about the
negative effects they experience from seeing their balances grow even
while making payments. Those comments evidence the significant
psychological effects felt by borrowers in trying to manage their
payments. Providing relief from growing balances would address those
concerns highlighted by borrowers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ 88 FR 43851 (July 10, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borrowers seeking PSLF may see similar benefits. For these public
service workers, waiving accrued or capitalized interest will generally
represent the expense of waiving amounts now that would otherwise be
forgiven when the borrower hits the ten-year forgiveness period. Like
IDR forgiveness, the cost of
[[Page 27593]]
this transfer will depend on how much the waived amounts would have
been repaid.
We estimate that about 6.4 million borrowers will receive relief
under Sec. 30.81.\81\ Under our estimate for Sec. 30.81, for modeling
purposes, we do not assume that borrowers will switch into an IDR plan
in order to receive a waiver under this provision; these borrowers are
captured under Sec. 30.82. Table 3.2 shows the demographic
characteristics of borrowers who would be eligible to receive a waiver
under this proposal. Among those who would be eligible for relief under
this provision, 76 percent received a Pell Grant at some point during
their postsecondary career, 68 percent are women, and around one-third
spent two years or less in higher education. Over half of these
borrowers have been in repayment for at least 10 years. In addition,
nearly one-quarter had been in default at some point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Additionally, we imputed income to provide an approximation
of borrowers' incomes to estimate how many borrowers would qualify
under this provision. However, because imputed income is an
approximation, we also estimate the number of borrowers who could be
eligible, regardless of income. In this estimate, 7.0 million
borrowers have balance growth and are enrolled in an IDR plan.
Because this estimate does not use an income limit, this number
serves as a likely upper bound on the number of borrowers who would
receive a waiver under Sec. 30.81. If there were a larger number of
borrowers that qualified under Sec. 30.81, then the number of
borrowers that qualified under Sec. 30.82 would decline by the
equivalent number.
Table 3.2--Estimated Number and Characteristics of Borrowers Who Would
Be Eligible for a Waiver Under Sec. 30.81
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Borrowers Receiving Any Forgiveness under this 6.4 M
provision..............................................
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans.......................... 4%
Ever Received a Pell Grant *........................ 76%
Ever Had a Default.................................. 24%
Age <30............................................. 20%
Age 30-50........................................... 64%
Age 50+............................................. 15%
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad... 35%
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad........... 38%
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School............. 27%
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years.................. 45%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10-20 Years................ 47%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years.................. 8%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Results from a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio.
All numbers are rounded. Borrowers are considered on IDR if the loan
is in repayment on any IDR plan, including plans where the borrower no
longer has a partial financial hardship.
* Pell Grant status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered
repayment on their last loan before 1999. As such, these figures may
understate the share of borrowers who are Pell Grant recipients.
Borrowers on IDR plans are particularly likely to see their
balances grow over time. We examined a sample panel of borrowers who
were enrolled in any IDR plan for at least three years from 2012 to
2022 and compared them to borrowers who were enrolled in a standard
ten-year repayment plan for at least three years. As shown in Table
3.3, borrowers who were enrolled in any IDR plan for at least three
years were more likely than borrowers with at least three years in a
standard repayment plan to have their balance grow. By 2022, borrowers
who spent a substantial amount of time repaying under IDR were 12
percentage points more likely to have seen their balance grow than
borrowers repaying on a standard plan.
Table 3.3--Share of Borrowers With Balances Greater Than What They Owed
Upon Entering Repayment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At least 3 years
in standard At least 3 years
Year repayment in IDR (percent)
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013.............................. 65 81
2014.............................. 59 79
2015.............................. 52 75
2016.............................. 46 71
2017.............................. 42 67
2018.............................. 38 64
2019.............................. 34 60
2020.............................. 32 58
2021.............................. 31 56
2022.............................. 29 54
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Based on a sample of borrowers who last entered repayment on a
non-consolidated loan in 2012. All numbers are rounded. Borrowers who
were both on IDR for more than three years and on a standard ten-year
repayment plan for more than three years are excluded from the
analysis.
Sec. 30.82 Waiver when the current balance exceeds the balance
upon entering repayment.
Borrowers who would be eligible for this provision include some IDR
borrowers whose incomes are too high to qualify for relief under Sec.
30.81 and also non-IDR borrowers. A substantial portion of IDR
borrowers experience balance growth because their income-based payments
do not fully cover the accruing interest on their loans. For non-IDR
borrowers, the extent of transfers will be dependent upon their
repayment history. All of the standard,
[[Page 27594]]
extended, and graduated repayment plans require borrowers to at least
cover monthly accruing interest with their monthly payment. However, if
borrowers spend time in deferment, forbearances, delinquency, or
default, they will accrue interest that can be capitalized into
principal. For borrowers in a deferment, interest that accrues on their
unsubsidized Stafford or PLUS loans will be added to their principal
balance when they exit the deferment. The same is true for borrowers
who left a forbearance prior to the payment pause. However, regulations
that went into effect on July 1, 2023, ended the practice of
capitalizing interest for borrowers when they leave a forbearance going
forward.
Many of the borrowers who would be eligible to receive a waiver
under this proposed regulation spent time in statuses that have broader
societal value. For instance, some borrowers were in deferment or
forbearance because they served in active-duty military or the national
guard. Thirty-six percent of borrowers who first entered postsecondary
education in 2003-04 and received at least one military or law
enforcement loan deferment had owed more than they did upon entering
repayment twelve years later.\82\ Borrowers who used a forbearance or
deferment to avoid default because of unemployment or economic
hardship, and now find themselves with loan balances they will struggle
to retire in a reasonable period, would also benefit from this
proposal. Sixty-three percent of borrowers who started their education
in 2003-04 and received at least one economic hardship deferment owed
more than they did upon entering repayment 12 years later.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ https://nces.ed.gov/datalab/powerstats/table/sejwfb.
\83\ https://nces.ed.gov/datalab/powerstats/table/sejwfb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate that 19.1 million borrowers would be eligible for
relief under Sec. 30.82. This number does not include borrowers
currently on IDR who would be eligible for a waiver under Sec. 30.81.
However, it does include some borrowers who are on IDR but whose
incomes are too high to qualify for a waiver under Sec. 30.81.\84\ To
get a sense of the effect of this policy, Table 3.4 below models the
characteristics of borrowers who have experienced balance growth in
excess of their balance at repayment entry. Among those whose balance
is at least $1 above what they owed upon entering repayment, 68 percent
ever received a Pell Grant, and 38 percent ever defaulted. Almost half
of these borrowers only enrolled for the first year or two of their
undergraduate education and around 80 percent only enrolled for
undergraduate education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ As noted earlier in footnote 25, we estimated a sensitivity
of the number of borrowers who could be eligible, regardless of
income.
Table 3.4--Estimated Number and Characteristics of Borrowers Who Would
Be Eligible for Waivers Under Sec. 30.82
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Borrowers Receiving Any Forgiveness Under this 19.0 M
Provision..............................................
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans.......................... 12%
Ever Received a Pell Grant *........................ 68%
Ever Had a Default.................................. 38%
Age <30............................................. 26%
Age 30-50........................................... 51%
Age 50+............................................. 23%
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad... 49%
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad........... 30%
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School............. 19%
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years.................. 52%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10-20 Years................ 37%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years.................. 11%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Results from a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio.
All numbers are rounded. Borrowers are considered to have experienced
balance growth if they owe at least $1 above their balance at the
start of repayment. Commercial FFEL loans and borrowers who are
currently in school or have loans that have not yet entered repayment
are excluded.
* Pell Grant status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered
repayment on their last loan before 1999. As such, these figures may
understate the share of borrowers who are Pell Grant recipients.
One way of contextualizing the experience of borrowers who have
experienced balance growth is to follow a cohort of borrowers over
time. For this analysis, the Department examined data over a 10-year
period for a group of borrowers who last entered repayment in 2012, to
the end of 2022. Borrowers are grouped by either: having paid off their
loans by the end of 2022, owing less than their balance at repayment,
or owing more than their balance at repayment. Table 3.5 shows the time
spent in statuses (expressed in months) where borrowers are not
actively paying or may be paying less than covered interest in an IDR
plan.
In the sample, among borrowers who are still in repayment,
borrowers who still owe more than they owed at the start of repayment
10 years later spent much longer in forbearance or deferment than
borrowers whose loan balance has not grown. The average and median
amounts of time a borrower who experienced balance growth spent in
forbearance were 30 and 23 months, respectively. This is more than
twice the amount of time spent in forbearance for borrowers who did not
have balance growth. Similarly, borrowers in the sample who experienced
balance growth were in deferment for longer periods than those who did
not experience balance growth. Borrowers in the sample with balance
growth also had longer average periods of default than borrowers still
in repayment, but without balance growth, and were more likely to be
using an IDR plan to repay their debt.
[[Page 27595]]
Table 3.5--Months in Certain Statuses Among Borrowers Who Entered Repayment in 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Borrowers with no balance 2012 Borrowers with balance
growth by end of 2022 growth by end of 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
Average Median Average Median
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forbearance..................................... 13 5 30 23
Deferment....................................... 7 0 11 0
Default......................................... 15 0 30 0
IDR............................................. 12 0 27 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Based on a random sample of approximately 150,000 borrowers who last entered repayment on a non-
consolidated loan in 2012. All numbers are rounded. A borrower is considered to have spent a year in IDR if
they are in an IDR plan as of the end of a given year (including non-partial financial hardship) and did not
spend all of their previous year in a non-payment status (forbearance, deferment, or default). Months are
rounded to the nearest month.
This section would provide the Secretary with discretionary waiver
authority that could create costs for the Department due to the
transfers that arise from waiving some loan amounts. However, because
the waivers in this proposal would not result in forgiving any of the
original principal, the government would still be in a position to
collect the full amount originally disbursed.
While the proposed regulations would create costs in the form of
transfers for the Federal Government, it would also provide benefits.
As previously described, recent borrower reports suggest that growing
loan balances can lead to both financial and psychological challenges
to successful repayment by borrowers.\85\ The Department also must pay
for either the ongoing servicing of loans in repayment or the costs of
collecting on defaulted loans, even if those loans are not expected to
lead to large amounts of revenue in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2020/05/borrowers-discuss-the-challenges-of-student-loan-repayment;
https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/in-default-and-left-behind/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other borrowers may benefit from reduced loan payments. Borrowers
on payment plans other than IDR would see their monthly payments
decrease if the Department waives any capitalized interest. Borrowers
on non-IDR plans may also see their time to repayment reduced, as the
total amount of payments needed to retire their debt decreases. The
extent of these effects on borrowers repaying under an IDR plan are
more challenging to assess, as they would be affected by whether
borrowers are close to reaching certain caps on payments that exist in
plans such as IBR and PAYE. In such situations, it could result in
either a reduced payment, repaying the loan before reaching
forgiveness, or both.
Beyond transfers, the Department estimates that there would be
administrative costs for the implementation of this benefit. These
costs are discussed at the very end of this subsection of the RIA.
Sec. 30.83 Waiver based on time since a loan first entered
repayment.
The proposal to permit the Secretary to waive loans that first
entered repayment 20 or 25 years ago, if exercised, would create costs
in the form of transfers between the Federal Government and borrowers.
Borrowers would receive significant benefits from no longer having to
repay old loans, and the Federal Government would also see benefits
from no longer servicing or collecting on loans that are largely not
expected to be repaid in full. Finally, this proposal would have
administrative costs for the Department to implement. Each is discussed
in more detail below, except for the administrative costs, which are
discussed at the end of this subsection of the RIA.
The size of the transfers between the Federal Government and
borrowers would depend on the borrower's repayment history and the
likelihood that an older loan would otherwise have been repaid. Under
the default repayment plan created by Congress (the standard repayment
plan), borrowers repay their loans over 120 equal installments--the
equivalent of 10 years of monthly payments. From 1965-2010, most
student loan borrowers made fixed monthly payments over a set period of
time. Starting in 1994, borrowers with Direct Loans had an option to
make payments based upon their income through the ICR plan. It provides
forgiveness after 25 years of monthly payment but was not used
extensively. In 2007, Congress created the IBR plan, which gave all
Direct and FFEL student borrowers access to a more generous repayment
plan tied to borrowers' income. Legislation in 2010 followed by
regulations in 2012 and 2015 further improved the terms of IDR plans
and expanded the options for Direct Loan borrowers. From 2010 to 2018
the share of undergraduate borrowers in IDR plans grew from 11 percent
to 24 percent.\86\ Currently, about one-third of federally managed loan
recipients are in IDR plans.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Congressional Budget Office (2020). Income-Driven Repayment
Plans for Student Loans: Budgetary Costs and Policy Options. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56277.
\87\ Based on Q4 2023 data on Direct Loans and ED-held FFEL
borrowers in Repayment, Deferment, and Forbearance from the FSA Data
Center, Portfolio by Repayment Plan, available at: https://studentaid.gov/data-center/student/portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With one exception, all other Federal loan repayment options result
in the debt being repaid or forgiven after no more than 25 years. For
instance, all IDR plans provide forgiveness after 20 or 25 years. The
one exception is for higher-balance consolidation loans--typically
those with starting balances of at least $60,000--which can be repaid
over 30 years.\88\ The idea then, is that most student loans will be
repaid over roughly a decade, with nearly all others being paid off
within 25 years at the latest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Eligibility for a 30-year repayment plan on a consolidation
loan is based upon total education loan indebtedness, which can
include non-Federal debts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The size of transfers that would be generated by this policy
depends on how many loans that would be eligible for waiver under this
policy are set to be repaid or, alternatively, are likely to simply
linger and eventually be forgiven through discharges due to a
borrower's death or total and permanent disability. For instance, based
on analysis of Department data, in 2022, there were more than 1 million
borrowers with loans that have been in default for at least 20 years.
During this period these borrowers could have been subject to negative
credit reporting, wage garnishment, tax refund offset, and even
litigation. If these loans are still outstanding after all this time
notwithstanding the availability of those powerful collection tools,
the odds that they would be fully repaid in a reasonable period are
unlikely. For instance, among borrowers who started college in 2004 and
ever defaulted on a
[[Page 27596]]
Federal loan, only about one-third paid off that loan in full within 12
years.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ Based on Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal
Surveys 2004/2009. https://nces.ed.gov/datalab/powerstats/table/loivbe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even loans not in default may not be fully repaid in a reasonable
period. For instance, a borrower may have spent extended periods in
forbearance because they could not afford their payments. While doing
so will allow them to avoid default, it will put them further away from
successful repayment due to the accumulation of interest.
Older loans are also going to be held by older borrowers. The older
the borrower, the greater the likelihood that they will stop working
prior to successful repayment. Forty-one percent of non-Parent PLUS
borrowers 62 years of age and older with an open loan have held their
student loans for more than 20 years, and 30 percent of borrowers 62
years of age and older with an open loan have held their student loans
for more than 25 years.\90\ Waiving such loans would not create
significant costs in the form of transfers for the Government because
it is unlikely to get significant additional payments from a retired
borrower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2023/data-on-older-borrowers-and-parents-session-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The costs of these transfers would be greater for loans where the
Government was expecting to see significant repayments. Some of these
situations are impossible to anticipate at any given scale, such as
borrowers who suddenly come into money from an inheritance or divorce
settlement and are either able to repay their loans voluntarily or see
a large increase in amounts obtained from enforced collections. Another
situation would relate to borrowers who are on a 30-year repayment
plan. For student borrowers, the Government would be forgoing the final
five years of payments, while for a borrower with a consolidation loan
that repaid a Parent PLUS loan and did not have any graduate loans, it
would be forgoing 10 years of payments. The Department projects that it
would be five years of foregone payments instead of 10 for student
borrowers because in order to qualify for a plan with a 30-year
amortization period, the borrower must have a level of debt above what
a borrower can take out in principal for their own undergraduate
education. These would be borrowers who would be eligible to receive a
waiver 25 years after entering repayment. Parent borrowers, meanwhile,
would be eligible to receive a waiver 20 years after entering
repayment, assuming they had no graduate debt of their own.
Table 3.6 provides estimates of the number of borrowers who would
be eligible to receive benefits under this provision and their
characteristics. About 2.6 million borrowers are expected to be
eligible for relief because they first entered repayment on or before
either July 1, 2000, or July 1, 2005, depending on whether they have
loans for graduate study. Forgiveness of debt among borrowers who
entered repayment 20 or 25 years ago particularly helps older
borrowers, with over 60 percent aged over 50. Additionally, over 80
percent of borrowers had previously had a default.
Table 3.6--Estimated Number and Characteristics of Borrowers Who Would
Be Eligible for Waivers Under Sec. 30.83
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borrowers at
20/25 years of
forgiveness
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Borrowers Receiving Any Forgiveness Under this 2.6 M
Provision..............................................
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans.......................... 10%
Ever Received a Pell Grant *........................ 36%
Ever Had a Default.................................. 83%
Age <30............................................. 0%
Age 30-50........................................... 37%
Age 50+............................................. 63%
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad... 49%
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad........... 30%
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School............. 14%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20-25 Years................ 41%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 25-30 Years................ 30%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 30+ Years.................. 29%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Results from a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio.
All numbers are rounded. Forgiveness in 2024 is based on having at
least one non-commercial FFEL loan enter repayment 20 years ago (if no
graduate debt) or 25 years ago (any graduate debt).
* Pell Grant status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered
repayment on their last loan before 1999. As such, these figures may
understate the share of borrowers who are Pell Grant recipients.
Waiving old loans would significantly benefit borrowers. For older
borrowers, ending required loan payments would reduce one source of
financial obligations for their final years in the workforce, putting
them in better shape for retirement and reducing their need to rely on
other sources of funds in their final years. It also could give some
borrowers who currently have to work to repay their loans the ability
to retire. Of the borrowers with loans 20 or 25 years old, 63 percent
are over 50 years old.
The Government would also see benefits from waiving older loans.
Continuing to pay the cost of collecting or servicing older debts that
are unlikely to be repaid generates costs for taxpayers that may never
be recouped. If a borrower defaults on their debt, a portion of their
Social Security benefit may be offset to repay the student loan; for
some borrowers, this reduction moves their benefits income below the
Federal poverty line.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ SOCIAL SECURITY OFFSETS: Improvements to Program Design
Could Better Assist Older Student Loan Borrowers with Obtaining
Permitted Relief. United States Government Accountability Office.
December 2016. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-45.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 30.84 Waiver when a loan is eligible for forgiveness based
upon repayment plan.
This provision would provide the Secretary with discretionary
waiver authority that could create costs in the
[[Page 27597]]
form of transfers from the Federal Government to student loan
borrowers. These waivers would apply in situations where borrowers
would be eligible to receive relief if they otherwise meet the
eligibility requirements for forgiveness under existing repayment
plans, but they have not applied. Waiver is appropriate because
borrowers often struggle to navigate the myriad loan repayment plans
available to them. As a result, the Department frequently observes that
borrowers who could receive immediate forgiveness are unaware of, or
are unable to take, the steps needed to receive relief. The cost of the
transfers that would occur from providing relief under this section
therefore represent the expense associated with providing relief to
borrowers who could not or did not know how to opt into already
existing benefits.
This provision is separate and distinct from Sec. 30.85. This
section only applies to borrowers who would be eligible for a discharge
based upon one of the repayment plans that result in forgiveness after
a set period. This includes all IDR plans, as well as the alternative
repayment plan. By contrast, Sec. 30.85 is focused on possible relief
for borrowers who otherwise qualify for forgiveness opportunities.
There is no guarantee that a borrower eligible for a waiver under Sec.
30.84 would be eligible for one under Sec. 30.85 or vice versa.
Providing waivers for borrowers who are eligible for relief but who
have not successfully applied for certain repayment plans provides
significant benefits for borrowers and the Department. For borrowers,
they would receive the benefit of no longer needing to repay their
student loan. This removes the risk of delinquency and default and also
means that they no longer need to devote a portion of their income to
the student loans being forgiven. They also derive benefits by
receiving relief automatically and not needing to spend the time to
navigate the repayment system. The Department, meanwhile, benefits by
no longer paying for the cost of servicing a loan that is otherwise
eligible for a discharge. Continuing to cover such costs is an
unnecessary expenditure of Federal funds. It can also create added
costs and work for the Department if the borrower applies later and is
then eligible for refunds of payments that they made after the point
when they were eligible for forgiveness. The Department also benefits
by providing relief automatically instead of needing to pay to process
individual borrower applications.
Table 3.7 reports estimates of the number of borrowers who would be
eligible for forgiveness under the SAVE plan, but who are not currently
enrolled in that plan. We estimate that about 1.7 million borrowers
will receive partial or complete forgiveness (with over half receiving
full forgiveness) as of December 31, 2023. Nearly 70 percent of these
borrowers received a Pell Grant and over one-third had a prior default.
Table 3.7--Estimated Characteristics of Borrowers Who Would Be Eligible
for Waivers Under Sec. 30.84
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of borrowers receiving any forgiveness........... 1.7 M
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans.......................... 5%
Ever Received a Pell Grant *........................ 66%
Ever Had a Default.................................. 45%
Age <30............................................. 0%
Age 30-50........................................... 72%
Age 50+............................................. 27%
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad... 65%
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad........... 26%
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School............. 7%
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years.................. 0%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10-20 Years................ 75%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years.................. 24%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Results are from analysis of a five percent sample of the student
loan portfolio. All numbers are rounded. Borrowers whose original loan
disbursement was less than $12,000 and who have made 120 payments were
classified as eligible, as were borrowers who had an additional 12
payments for each $1,000 borrowed above that amount. Eligibility ends
at 19 years of payments on $21,000 or original principal balance for
borrowers who only have undergraduate loans or 24 years for borrowers
who originally took out $24,000 and have any graduate loans. Borrowers
above that point would receive the typical forgiveness on SAVE at 20
or 25 years. Parent PLUS loans and FFEL loans were excluded from this
analysis, but borrowers with these types of loans may still be
eligible for forgiveness on other Federal loans they hold.
* Pell Grant status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered
repayment on their last loan before 1999. As such, these figures may
understate the share of borrowers who are Pell Grant recipients.
Waivers under this provision would generate two types of costs. One
is costs in the form of transfers from the Department to the borrower.
However, as discussed, these would be transfers borrowers could already
receive if they were to take the necessary steps to apply for the
specific repayment plan. While these do show up as costs in this
proposed rule, we believe the benefits of providing this relief
automatically and the savings generated from such an approach are
better than incurring the costs to provide this relief on an individual
basis.
Action under these provisions would come with costs for the
Department in the form of administrative expenses to implement this
change. These costs are discussed at the end of this subsection of the
RIA.
Sec. 30.85 When a loan is eligible for a targeted forgiveness
opportunity.
This provision provides the Secretary with discretionary waiver
authority that, if exercised, would create costs in the form of
transfers between the Department and borrowers who see some or all of
their outstanding loan balances waived. It would also provide benefits
to borrowers by granting them relief for which they would otherwise
have to apply. This automatic relief would also provide benefits to the
Department because it would no longer need to pay to service loans that
could otherwise be forgiven and could apply relief automatically
instead of on an individual basis. This provision would also create
some administrative costs for the Department to implement this
provision. Administrative costs are discussed in a separate section at
the end of this subsection of the RIA.
For borrowers, the benefits would be most felt by the individuals
who are least likely to apply for relief, because we anticipate that
borrowers who are aware of the targeted forgiveness opportunities will
successfully apply for them. The Department anticipates that
[[Page 27598]]
the benefits of this provision will be most felt by borrowers who are
at the greatest risk of default and delinquency because those are the
borrowers who are the least engaged with the student loan system.
Comparisons of borrowers who successfully applied for relief versus
those who received it through automatic action highlight the extent to
which more at-risk borrowers get left behind by a process that requires
borrowers to apply. For instance, past studies of closed school loan
discharges by GAO found that the borrowers who did not apply for this
relief and instead received an automatic discharge were far more likely
to be in default than those who successfully applied.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-105373.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.8 reports estimates of the number of and characteristics of
borrowers who would be eligible for a waiver under Sec. 30.85. To
estimate the potential effect of Sec. 30.85 we looked at borrowers who
are eligible but have not applied for a closed school loan discharge.
This is the forgiveness opportunity where the Department has
information in its systems necessary to determine eligibility and
provides a strong source for estimating the number of potential waivers
that the Secretary may grant under this provision. The Secretary may
grant waivers based on eligibility for other forgiveness programs, but
such waivers would depend on the Department obtaining additional
information, such as fact-specific indicators of misconduct of colleges
or data matches with States or other Federal entities to determine
eligibility for PSLF.
Table 3.8--Estimated Number and Characteristics of Borrowers Who Would
Be Eligible for Waivers Under Sec. 30.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Borrowers Receiving Any Forgiveness Under this 0.26 M
Provision..............................................
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans.......................... 6%
Ever Received a Pell grant *........................ 73%
Ever Had a Default.................................. 39%
Age <30............................................. 25%
Age 30-50........................................... 48%
Age 50+............................................. 27%
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad... 66%
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad........... 21%
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School............. 9%
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years.................. 57%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10-20 Years................ 24%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years.................. 13%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Results are from analysis of a five percent sample of the student
loan portfolio. All numbers are rounded. Borrower is counted if their
loan maturity date was within one year after the school's closure date
or their loan's disbursement was within one year before the closure
date. Borrower's loans are included if they are Direct or federally-
managed FFEL loans.
* Pell Grant status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered
repayment on their last loan before 1999. As such, these figures may
understate the share of borrowers who are Pell Grant recipients.
The Department would also benefit from providing discharges under
Sec. 30.85, which would stop the Department from paying for the costs
of servicing or collecting loans that are otherwise eligible to be
forgiven. In addition, some targeted forgiveness opportunities, such as
closed school discharges, include provisions that refund payments for
borrowers. Processing refunds is costly and time-consuming for the
Department, so providing relief sooner and reducing the number of
future unnecessary payments that must be refunded is also more
efficient for the Department. Finally, the Department would benefit
from providing automatic relief instead of processing individual
applications because the more streamlined process reduces
administrative burden and costs.
Waivers granted under this section would create some costs. The
Department believes the costs associated with the discharges themselves
are outweighed by the benefits because this is relief that a borrower
would otherwise receive anyway if they submitted the right paperwork at
the right time. To that end, the cost is essentially capturing revenue
the Department receives because borrowers are either unaware of certain
discharge programs or do not successfully apply.
Sec. 30.86 Waiver based upon Secretarial actions.
This section provides the Secretary with discretionary waiver
authority that, if exercised, would create costs in the form of
transfers between the Department and borrowers by providing loan
discharges. It would not create any transfers between institutions of
higher education and the Department. Relief provided to borrowers under
this section would be done as a waiver, which means there would be no
liability to seek against an institution.
The waivers granted under this section would provide significant
benefits to borrowers. Through this provision, borrowers would no
longer have to repay loans they took out to attend programs or
institutions that have lost access to Federal student financial aid
based on Secretarial actions that determined their program or
institution failed to provide sufficient financial value or failed a
student outcomes accountability measure, provided that the borrowers
attended the program during the corresponding time period. For
instance, the Department would waive outstanding loans taken out by
borrowers who were part of cohorts whose data showed their institution
or program did not meet required title IV accountability standards
because of unacceptably high rates of student loan default, had poor
levels of debt compared to the earnings of graduates, or failed to
provide graduates a financial return equal to or greater than the
earnings of a high school graduate who never pursued postsecondary
education. These are loans where at least some significant share of the
borrowers are exhibiting either direct signs of struggle or
experiencing circumstances, such as excessive debt burdens, that
suggest that there is a strong likelihood of inability to repay.
The other waivers that may be provided under this section would
similarly benefit borrowers. The
[[Page 27599]]
Department has seen in the past that borrowers who take out loans to
attend programs or institutions that engaged in substantial
misrepresentations such as lying about crucial issues like expected
earnings or job placement rates of graduates or similar indicia often
also had high rates of delinquency and default.
These waivers would significantly benefit borrowers by no longer
making them repay loans where there is either existing evidence of high
rates of default or factors that strongly correlate with challenges in
repayment. These waivers would particularly benefit borrowers who are
in default, as they would no longer face negative credit reporting,
wage garnishment, the seizure of tax refunds, or other forms of
enforced collections. Removing these loans from their consumer reports
would also likely improve their credit scores since more than 80
percent of these borrowers have had a default, which could have
downstream benefits in terms of securing other forms of credit other
than Federal student loans, as well as in other contexts like tenant or
employment screening. If this waiver results in the waiver of all of a
borrower's defaulted Federal student loans, the borrower may also be
able to obtain new loans or Federal grant aid to attend a program or
institution that would provide them with better value.
The Department would also benefit from this provision. It would no
longer need to pay for the costs of servicing or collecting on loans
where borrowers have already demonstrated they are part of cohorts that
had high rates of default or are burdened by excessive debt compared to
their earnings or have extremely low earnings. The Department is
unlikely to fully collect such loans or to do so in a reasonable
period. The costs of providing such discharges may not be as
significant as the Department may not be likely to receive significant
repayments or collection from these loans. For these reasons, we
believe that the costs of these discharges would be outweighed by the
benefits.
Table 3.9 below shows the estimated number of borrowers who would
be eligible for relief because they attended institutions that failed
the cohort default rate metrics between 1992-2020 and subsequently lost
eligibility to disburse Federal financial aid.\93\ In total, we
estimate that less than 0.01 million borrowers who attended schools
that failed CDR metrics and then subsequently lost eligibility to
disburse title IV aid would be eligible for waivers under this
provision. About 30 percent of the borrowers who would experience
relief under this provision received a Pell Grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ For schools that had high CDR metrics prior to 1999 or from
2015 to 2020, we do not have an exact accounting of which of schools
were able to successfully appeal their potential sanctions.
Therefore, we approximate which schools lost eligibility to disburse
Title IV aid by comparing the list to data on Title IV eligibility
from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), as
of 2002 (for 1992-1998) and 2022 (2015-2020).
Table 3.9--Estimated Number and Characteristics of Borrowers Who Would
Be Eligible for Waivers Under Sec. 30.86
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Borrowers Receiving Any Forgiveness Under this 0.01 M
Provision:.............................................
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans.......................... 6%
Ever Received a Pell Grant.......................... 31%
Ever Had a Default.................................. 83%
Age <30............................................. 2%
Age 30-50........................................... 29%
Age 50+............................................. 69%
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad... 83%
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad........... 10%
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School............. 2%
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years.................. 9%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10-20 Years................ 21%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years.................. 70%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Results from a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio.
All numbers are rounded. Forgiveness in 2024 is based on having at
least one loan with a positive outstanding balance from an institution
that failed the CDR metrics since 1998 and was closed or not providing
title IV aid to students as of 2002, having a loan from an institution
that lost eligibility for Title IV between 1999 and 2014 due to CDR
sanctions, or having a loan from an institution that failed the CDR
metrics from 2015-2020 and was closed or not providing Title IV aid to
students as of 2022. Borrower's loans are included if they are Direct
or federally-managed FFEL loans.
* Pell status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered repayment on
their last loan before 1999.
The above estimates in Table 3.9 also do not include borrowers who
would be eligible to receive relief because they attend a program that
fails GE metrics and loses access to Federal aid. Under the GE
accountability framework from the 2023 GE Rule, all certificate and
diploma programs at public and private nonprofit institutions and
educational programs at for-profit institutions of higher education
with a sufficient number of completers will be assessed annually on
whether they meet debt-to-earnings and earnings premium standards.
Under those regulations, the Department will hold career training
programs accountable for keeping debt affordable and producing economic
mobility by revoking eligibility for Federal student aid programs if
programs fail metrics in two of three consecutive years.\94\ Such
actions will protect future students against unaffordable loan burdens;
however, the borrowers whose experiences were captured in the failing
debt-to-earnings or earnings premium standards also merit relief. For
example, the first two official GE metrics will be published in 2025
and 2026, based on the experiences of students who attended years
earlier.\95\ If a program fails the same metric in both years, students
will
[[Page 27600]]
no longer be able to borrow Federal loans or receive Pell Grants to
attend that program, but students who attended during the years on
which the failing metrics are based would be eligible for relief on
their Federal loans under these proposed regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ There are two key metrics under the GE regulations, a debt-
to-earnings (D/E) rate and an earnings premium (EP) test. Programs
that fail either metric in a single year will be required to provide
warnings to current and prospective students. Programs that fail the
same metric in two of three consecutive years will not be eligible
to participate in Federal student aid programs. See https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2021/gainful-employment-notice-of-final-review-factsheet.pdf.
\95\ Depending on the number of students who completed the
program, the cohort period will either be two years or four years.
For example, for D/E and EP measure calculations during the 2023-24
award year, the two-year cohort period will be award years 2017-18
and 2018-19 and the four-year cohort period will be award years
2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RIA that accompanied the 2023 GE final regulations estimated
that approximately 700,000 students annually are in programs that could
fail the standards in the GE rule. After the GE accountability
framework goes into effect in 2024, and after programs may start to
become ineligible to participate in the title IV, HEA aid programs in
2026, the GE RIA estimates that the number of students in failing
programs will gradually decline, reducing the number of students
eligible for relief under this provision in the future.
This RIA does not include a separate analysis of the potential
effect on borrowers from Sec. 30.86(a)(2). The Department anticipates
that waivers that could be granted in these situations would occur on a
case-by-case basis. For past cohorts, the number of institutions that
lost access to aid under these provisions is generally small. And some
of those institutions, such as Marinello Schools of Beauty, have since
been covered by actions to discharge groups of loans based upon
borrower defense to repayment findings. For future borrowers, the
Department cannot predict administrative actions that have yet to
occur, so it is not possible to assign a likely cost to future loan
cohorts.
Finally, this provision would create small administrative costs for
the Department to implement. Administrative costs are discussed
separately at the end of this subsection of the RIA.
Sec. 30.87 Waiver following a closure prior to Secretarial
actions.
The waivers granted under this section would have transfers,
benefits, and costs that are similar to those under Sec. 30.86.
However, these elements would affect a distinct group of borrowers who
would not be eligible for a waiver under Sec. 30.86 and would only
have some overlap with borrowers eligible under Sec. 30.88. These
borrowers are in a different situation than borrowers eligible for
relief under Sec. 30.86 because they borrowed to attend an institution
or program that failed to meet certain outcomes standards or was in the
middle of a Secretarial action related to not providing sufficient
financial value, but the institution or program closed before the
Department completed the action to remove aid eligibility. Similar to
Sec. 30.86, this provision would not create any transfers between
institutions and the Department because amounts that are waived could
not be recouped from the school.
Borrowers would benefit from this provision because they would no
longer have to repay loans taken out to attend programs or institutions
that had been exhibiting evidence of excessively poor student loan
outcomes or otherwise failing to provide sufficient financial value.
Loans taken out in these situations are likely to result in higher
rates of delinquency and default, meaning that the waivers under this
section would provide added benefits such as protecting borrowers from
negative credit reporting, the possibility of wage garnishment, tax
refund or Social Security benefit seizure, and other forms of enforced
collections.
The Department would also benefit from waivers granted under this
section. As discussed, these loans are owed by borrowers who are more
likely to struggle to repay their debts and the Department may need to
incur greater costs to provide the borrowers with more targeted
outreach and more help to navigate repayment. If these loans are older,
it is also less likely that the Department would be collecting
significant sums from the borrowers, reducing the likelihood that the
loans will be fully repaid.
As noted above, the costs of this provision would largely come from
the transfers granted to borrowers when a loan is discharged. We are
not including specific modeling of these transfers because we believe
the potential effect of this section would be much smaller than what is
captured in Sec. 30.86. We believe the largest effect is likely to be
related to borrowers who attended institutions that preemptively closed
when cohort default rates were first created, as we have seen few to no
schools close in recent years due to impending loss of Federal aid from
high default rates. While there are closures that occur before other
Secretarial actions are finalized, this occurs more on a case-by-case
basis and typically does not occur in large numbers. This provision
provides critical benefits to the borrowers who would be eligible for
relief, but we do not think it operates on a large enough scale to
model.
For example, borrowers who attended programs that failed the
previously published GE rates released in 2017, based on the 2015 debt
measure year, would be eligible for a waiver under this provision.
However, current data limitations related to program information in
NSLDS for the cohorts included in those 2017 rates prevent us from
estimating the number of borrowers who would be eligible for waivers
under this provision.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ These data are available https://studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/GE-DMYR-2015-Final-Rates.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, this provision would create administrative costs to
implement. Administrative costs are discussed separately at the end of
this subsection of the RIA.
Sec. 30.88 Waiver for closed Gainful Employment (GE) programs with
high debt-to-earnings rates or low median earnings.
Waivers granted under this section would provide transfers,
benefits, and costs that are similar to a portion of those that could
occur under Sec. 30.87. However, these benefits would affect a
distinct group including those that are not otherwise captured under
any other provision. The reasons for waivers under this section are
also narrower than those in Sec. Sec. 30.86 and 30.87.
Table 3.10 below shows the estimated number of borrowers who would
be eligible for waivers because they attended a program that failed the
GE metric for any reason based on the data from the 2015, 2016, and
2017 Award Years released in 2023 along with the GE Rule Regulatory
Impact Analysis and also did not have any students who received Title
IV aid from 2018 onwards.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ The Department released a data file called the 2022 Program
Performance Data (``2022 PPD'') along with the proposed rule titled
``Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment (GE),
Financial Responsibility, Administrative Capability, Certification
Procedures, Ability to Benefit (ATB)'' available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/ED-2023-OPE-0089-0086. These data
include program performance information, using measures based on the
typical debt levels and post-enrollment earnings of program
completers.
[[Page 27601]]
Table 3.10--Estimated Number and Characteristics of Borrowers Who Would
Be Eligible for Waivers Under Sec. 30.88
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Borrowers Receiving Any Forgiveness Under this 0.01 M
Provision:.............................................
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans.......................... 6%
Ever Received a Pell Grant.......................... 78%
Ever Had a Default.................................. 33%
Age <30............................................. 15%
Age 30-50........................................... 70%
Age 50+............................................. 15%
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad... 60%
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad........... 13%
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School............. 27%
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years.................. 86%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10-20 Years................ 14%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years.................. 0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Results from a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio.
All numbers are rounded. Borrower's loans are included if they are
Direct or federally-managed FFEL loans.
* Pell Grant status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered
repayment on their last loan before 1999. As such, these figures may
understate the share of borrowers who are Pell Grant recipients.
The number of students who attended such programs is likely higher
than this estimate, but data limitations prevent us from including in
this estimate borrowers who attended programs that failed the 2011
Gainful Employment Informational Metrics.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ These data are available at https://studentaid.gov/data-center/school/ge/data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The waivers under this provision would create costs in the form of
transfers. Such transfers would go to borrowers who have loans used to
enroll in programs that produced results that according to data from
the Department show that they had high debt-to-earnings or low earnings
premium measures that did not meet basic standards of financial value,
but the program closed prior to the issuance of formal GE rates under
the new GE rule. While these programs did not have the formal failures
that would qualify for a discharge under Sec. Sec. 30.86 or 30.87, the
outcomes are so poor that, when paired with closure, the Department's
concerns about borrowers' ability to repay loans from these programs
are similar.
The Department would also benefit by waiving these loans. As
discussed, these loans are from borrowers who attended programs with
data showing that graduates take on more debt than is reasonable or
whose earnings are worse than what a high school graduate earns.
Borrowers in such situations are more likely to struggle to repay their
debts and may incur greater costs for the Department in the form of
more targeted outreach and more help to navigate repayment. If these
loans are older, it is also less likely that the Department may be
collecting significant sums from them, reducing the likelihood they
will be repaid. Beyond costs in the form of transfers, implementing
this provision will come with small administrative costs for the
Department. Administrative costs are discussed separately at the end of
this subsection of the RIA.
Part 682--Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program
Subpart D--Administration of the Federal Family Education Loan Programs
by a Guaranty Agency
Sec. 682.403 Waiver of FFEL Program Loan Debt.
The costs, benefits, and transfers under proposed Sec. 682.403
would differ slightly depending on whether the loan is currently in
repayment or in default at a guaranty agency. For loans in repayment,
proposed Sec. 682.403 would result in transfers between the guaranty
agency using Federal funds to pay the FFEL loan holder and then
assigning that loan to the Department for eventual waiver. The size of
this transfer would be equal to the full outstanding balance of the
loan owed to private loan holders, plus unpaid interest and fees, as
applicable. Such a transfer would not occur for loans in default at a
guaranty agency. For these loans, the former private loan holder had
already been paid a default claim payment by the guaranty agency using
Federal funds. The costs from a transfer would be more directly from
the Department to the borrower, as the guaranty agency would assign the
loan to the Department, which would then waive the remaining balance.
These waivers would provide significant benefits to borrowers, who
would be relieved of their obligation to make further payments on their
loans. For Sec. 682.403(b)(1) the benefits are similar to those
provided in Sec. 30.83 for borrowers whose loans are managed by the
Department and are at least 25 years old. Such waivers would benefit
borrowers who have been unable to fully repay their loans over a
reasonable period of time. Such borrowers tend to be older and many of
these borrowers have spent time in default. Waiving such loans provides
relief to borrowers who have shown persistent challenges with repayment
and, in the case of older borrowers, would likely improve their
financial stability in their final years.
The benefits of Sec. 682.403(b)(2) are similar to some of those of
Sec. 30.85, which provides a waiver for borrowers eligible for a
targeted forgiveness opportunity. In this case, only borrowers who
would otherwise be eligible for a closed school loan discharge but have
not applied would be covered. These borrowers would receive a discharge
were they to apply. However, as research from GAO has shown, many
borrowers eligible for closed school loan discharges in the past have
not successfully applied for this relief, and many of these borrowers
end up in default.\99\ This provision would benefit such borrowers by
granting them relief and ensuring they do not unnecessarily experience
default.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-105373.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The benefits of Sec. 682.403(b)(3), meanwhile, are similar to the
benefits that would be available under Sec. 30.86 for borrowers who
attend institutions that become ineligible for Federal aid because of
high cohort default rates. These waivers would apply to borrowers who
are part of cohorts that produced the high rates of default
[[Page 27602]]
resulting in title IV ineligibility, meaning many such borrowers are
likely either currently in default or have spent time in default in the
past. These waivers would significantly benefit borrowers by no longer
making them repay loans where there is existing evidence of borrowers
struggling to repay their loans at high rates that exceed the
Department's accountability standards. Table 3.11 below shows the
number and characteristics of borrowers who would be eligible for
waivers under Sec. 682.403. Of note is the fact that 45 percent of
these borrowers ever experienced a default, and we estimate about 30
percent are currently in default.
Table 3.11--Estimate of the Number and Characteristics of Borrowers Who
Would Be Eligible for Waivers Under Sec. 682.403
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Borrowers Receiving Any Forgiveness Under this 0.9 M
Provision..............................................
Of Those Receiving Forgiveness, Share Who:
Have Any Parent PLUS Loans.......................... 14%
Ever Received a Pell grant *........................ 19%
Ever Had a Default.................................. 45%
Age <30............................................. 0%
Age 30-50........................................... 27%
Age 50+............................................. 73%
Highest Level Enrolled: 1st or 2nd Year Undergrad... 24%
Highest Level Enrolled: 3+ Year Undergrad........... 34%
Highest Level Enrolled: Graduate School............. 36%
Oldest Loan In Repayment <10 Years.................. 0%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 10-20 Years................ 0%
Oldest Loan In Repayment 20+ Years.................. 99%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Results from a five percent sample of the student loan portfolio.
All numbers are rounded. Forgiveness is for borrowers with any
commercial FFEL loans that entered repayment on July 1, 2000 or
earlier, borrowers with at least one commercial FFEL loan with a
positive outstanding balance to attend an institution that failed CDR
metrics between 1992 and 1998 or 2015 to 2020, and was closed or not
providing title IV aid to students as of 2002 or 2022 respectively, or
having a loan to attend an institution that lost eligibility for title
IV between 1999 and 2014 due to CDR sanctions, or from a school that
closed just after, or during, the student's enrollment.
* Pell status is unavailable for most borrowers who entered repayment on
their last loan before 1999.
The Department would benefit from the provisions in Sec. 682.403,
as well. Some of these loans have already been in default in the past
and may not be repaid. In those cases, taxpayers have already
compensated the lender for the default and the debt may not be
collected. In addition, and as noted earlier, these provisions are
similar to several of the waiver provisions for Department-held loans.
The Department benefits from treating borrowers with commercially held
FFEL loans in a similar manner as borrowers with ED-held loans because
it streamlines providing relief to borrowers who could consolidate into
the Direct Loan program and it reduces the Department's need to respond
to borrower confusion.
The waivers may also provide some benefits for holders of FFEL
loans by fully paying off loans that are either unlikely to ever be
repaid or that may not be repaid in a reasonable period. In the years
before the FFEL program stopped issuing new loans, many lenders chose
to securitize their outstanding loans by issuing asset-backed
securities. This approach creates long-term bond obligations that must
be repaid using the payments made by borrowers and any subsidies
received from the Department. However, the growth in the number of
borrowers using the IBR plan to repay these privately held FFEL loans
may be resulting in fewer incoming payments than expected. In 2020, the
Wall Street Journal reported how some student loan asset-backed
securities were extending the anticipated pay off date of the bond by
decades, including as much as 54 years to avoid potential write-downs
by credit rating agencies.\100\ Compensating a lender for outstanding
amounts of loans that are not on track to be repaid even after 20 or 25
years since entering repayment may provide a benefit to lenders and
bond holders that are otherwise struggling to receive sufficient
repayments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-borrower-will-be-114-when-bonds-backed-by-her-student-loans-mature-11578393002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bulk of the costs from this provision would accrue to the
Department by paying guaranty agencies to compensate loan holders for
the outstanding value of loans that the Secretary chooses to waive. The
Department believes these costs are justified because the benefits to
the Department and the borrower to address loans that are unlikely to
be fully repaid are significant. In some cases, such as loans owed by
borrowers who attended closed schools, these are also debts that could
be forgiven otherwise as soon as the borrower submits certain
paperwork.
We anticipate administrative expenses associated with the
provisions in proposed Sec. 682.403. We think these costs would be
reasonable because the provisions in this section largely mirror
existing regulations for processing certain discharges in the FFEL
program, which have been used for some time. To that end, loan
servicers and guaranty agencies would not need to stand up a whole new
process. That means any costs would likely relate to producing the
necessary paperwork for a lender to submit a claim to the guaranty
agency and for the guaranty agency to process that claim and assign the
loan to the Department. The Department would also incur administrative
costs to receive and then waive an assigned loan, which are discussed
in the separate section on administrative costs at the end of this
subsection of the RIA. But this assignment and waiver process would
also leverage existing channels. Finally, it is possible that some
lenders could face costs from no longer receiving the quarterly special
allowance payments (SAP) that are payable to FFEL loan holders on
certain loans. These amounts vary based upon when a loan was disbursed
and other factors.\101\ The extent to which forgoing future SAP
payments on a loan represents a cost will depend significantly on
whether the loan was otherwise being repaid as expected or not. For
example, a loan holder that was receiving lower than anticipated
payments due to a borrower being on IBR may be financially better off
to have the loan paid off and forgo the SAP
[[Page 27603]]
payment. A loan that is otherwise being paid down might see some costs
due to forgoing SAP. But this would also require factoring in the value
of receiving payments today instead of hypothetical future ones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ https://fsapartners.ed.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/SAPMemoQ42022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Costs
These proposed rules would create administrative costs for the
Department if the Secretary were to exercise his discretion to provide
waivers under any of these sections. These costs are reported as a
separate section because they generally represent a set of baseline
expenses that the Department would incur. The marginal costs of
implementing one change but not another would vary depending on the
proposed regulatory section in question. For instance, the marginal
cost of implementing Sec. 30.82 on top of Sec. 30.81 is smaller than
it would be if the Department were to implement Sec. 30.82 on top of
Sec. 30.83. Accordingly, we are presenting an overall estimate, the
cost of which would be lower for solely the provisions related to
Sec. Sec. 30.83 through 30.85. The Department does include a separate
discussion for Sec. 682.403, which is a different process that would
involve granting a waiver after taking assignment of a loan. We
estimate these cumulative costs would be largely split across the 2024
and 2025 fiscal years.
Overall, the Department estimates that the waivers in Sec. Sec.
30.81 through 30.88 would require one-time administrative expenses of
approximately $13.0 million. These costs are associated with changes to
Department systems and contractors. In addition, we estimate an
additional cost of $18.0 million for waivers associated with Sec.
682.403. This is due to the assumption of a per-borrower cost for
processing the waiver on an assigned loan.
Unduplicated Estimate of the Number of Borrowers Receiving Waivers
Because of Sec. Sec. 30.81 Through 30.88 and Part 682, Subpart D
The estimates in the above discussion showed the projected effect
of each waiver as a distinct action. An exception to this is the
estimate for Sec. 30.82, which does not include borrowers who are
eligible in Sec. 30.81. Doing so reflects the separate and independent
nature of the provisions and how the rationale behind each is unique.
However, it is possible that a given borrower could end up in multiple
categories. Therefore, to assist readers in understanding the combined
total of these potential waivers, we present Table 3.12 below. This
table shows the estimated effect of these provisions in terms of the
number of borrowers affected. The total for each provision is included
independently, and matches the numbers provided in the tables above. In
the last row, we display that 27.6 million unique borrowers, de-
duplicated across all provisions, that would receive a waiver. This
number removes duplication from the tables that are found elsewhere in
this subsection of the RIA.
Table 3.12--Estimated Number of Borrowers Who Would Be Eligible for
Waivers Under Various Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
borrowers
(millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 30.81 Waiver when the current balance exceeds the 6.4
balance upon entering repayment for borrowers on an IDR
plan...................................................
Sec. 30.82 Any balance growth Up to $20K.............. 19.0
Sec. 30.83 Waiver based on time since a loan first 2.6
entered repayment......................................
Sec. 30.84 Waiver when a loan is eligible for 1.7
forgiveness based upon repayment plan..................
Sec. 30.85 Waiver when a loan is eligible for a 0.3
targeted forgiveness opportunity.......................
Sec. 30.86 Waiver based upon Secretarial actions...... <0.1
Sec. 30.88 Waiver for closed Gainful Employment (GE) <0.1
programs with high debt-to-earnings rates or low median
earnings...............................................
Part 682 Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program 0.9
Subpart D--Administration of the Federal Family
Education Loan Programs by a Guaranty Agency...........
Unique Borrowers across Sec. Sec. 30.81 through 30.88 27.6
and Part 682, Subpart D................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: All numbers are rounded.
4. Net Budget Impact
Table 4.1 provides an estimate of the net Federal budget impact of
these proposed regulations that are summarized in Table 2.2 of this
RIA. This includes both costs of a modification to existing loan
cohorts and costs for loan cohorts from 2025 to 2034. A cohort reflects
all loans originated in a given fiscal year. Consistent with the
requirements of the Credit Reform Act of 1990, budget cost estimates
for the student loan programs reflect the estimated net present value
of all future non-administrative Federal costs associated with a cohort
of loans. The baseline for estimating the cost of these final
regulations is the President's Budget for 2025 (PB2025).
Table 4.1--Estimated Budget Impact of the NPRM
[$ in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification
Section Description score (1994- Outyear score Total (1994-
2024) (2025-2034) 2034)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 30.83....................... Loans that first entered 13,762 .............. 13,762
repayment 20 or 25 years
ago as of FY2025.
Sec. 30.84....................... Eligible for forgiveness on 8,663 .............. 8,663
an IDR plan but not
currently enrolled in an
IDR plan.
Sec. 30.86....................... Took out loans during 15 .............. 15
cohorts that caused school
to lose access to aid due
to high CDRs.
Sec. 30.85....................... Eligible for a closed 7,565 .............. 7,565
school loan discharge but
has not successfully
applied.
[[Page 27604]]
Sec. 30.86-Sec. 30.88.......... Borrowed to attend a 11,927 15,274 27,201
gainful employment program
that lost access to aid or
closed.
Sec. 30.81....................... Current balance exceeds 10,966 .............. 10,966
amount owed upon entering
repayment for borrowers on
an IDR plan with income
below certain thresholds.
Sec. 30.82....................... Current balance exceeds 62,094 .............. 62,094
amount owed upon entering
repayment for borrowers
not on an IDR plan or who
are on an IDR plan but
have incomes above the
thresholds in 30.81.
Sec. 682.403..................... Commercial FFEL loans that 17,053 .............. 17,053
first entered repayment 25
years ago; eligible for a
closed school discharge,
but have not applied; or
loans to attend a school
that lost access to aid
due to high CDRs, for
applicable cohort.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is possible that borrowers may qualify for more than one
provision, but they can only receive one waiver of the full outstanding
balance of a loan. Accordingly, the primary budget estimate stacks the
scores in the order shown with waivers resulting in the full relief of
a loan's outstanding balance evaluated prior to considering waivers
related to partial forgiveness of amounts related to balance growth.
However, all the relief available to borrowers of FFEL loans is
reflected in one estimate after the estimates for the other provisions.
The Department believes this stacked estimation is appropriate for the
primary estimates of the proposed regulations.
Methodology for Budget Impact
The Department estimated the budget impact of the provisions in
this draft rule that permits the Secretary to waive some or all of the
outstanding balance of loans through changes to the Department's Death,
Disability, and Bankruptcy (DDB) assumption that handles a broad range
of loan discharges or adjustments, the collections assumption to
reflect balance changes on loans that ever defaulted, and the IDR
assumption for effects on borrowers in those repayment plans. The
projected amount of forgiveness is estimated based on administrative
data about the loan portfolio that allows us to identify loans eligible
for the various waivers. The DDB assumption is used in the Student Loan
Model (SLM) to determine the rate and timing of loan discharges due to
the death, disability, bankruptcy, or other discharge of the borrowers.
The SLM is designed to calculate cash flow estimates for the
Department's Federal postsecondary student loan programs in compliance
with the Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA) and all relevant federal
guidance. The SLM calculates student loan net cost estimates for loan
cohorts where a cohort consists of the loans originated in a given
budget (fiscal) year. The model operates with input data obtained from
historical experience and other relevant data sources. The SLM cash
flow components range from origination fees through scheduled principal
and interest payments, defaults, collections, recoveries, and fees. The
cash flow time period begins with the fiscal year of first disbursement
and ends with the fiscal year of the events at the end of the life of
the loan: repayment, discharge, or forgiveness.
For each loan cohort, the SLM contains separate DDB rates by loan
program, population (Non-Consolidated, Consolidated Not From Default,
and Consolidated From Default), loan type, and budget risk group (Two-
Year Public and Not-for-Profit, Two-Year Proprietary, Four-Year
Freshman and Sophomore, Four-Year Junior and Senior, and Graduate
Student). The DDB rate is the sum of several component rates that
reflect underlying claims data and assumptions about the effect of
policy changes and updated data on future claims activity. In general,
DDB claims are aggregated as the numerator by fiscal year of
origination and population, program, loan type, risk group, and years
from origination until the DDB claims. Zeros are used for any missing
categories in the numerator. Net loan amounts are aggregated as the
denominator by fiscal year of origination and population, program loan
type, and risk group. The DDB rate is simply the ratio of the numerator
to the denominator. Because the SLM only allows for DDB rates to be
specified up to 30 years from origination, DDB claims occurring more
than 30 years after origination are included in the year 30 rate. DDB
rates for future cohorts are forecasted using weighted averages of
prior year rates and have a number of additions and adjustment factors
built into it to capture policies or anticipated discharges that are
not reflected in the processed discharge data yet including adjustments
for anticipated increased borrower defense and closed school activity.
For estimates related to waivers granted to borrowers enrolled in
IDR repayment plans, the Department has a borrower and loan type level
submodel that generates representative cashflows for use in the SLM.
This IDR submodel contains information about borrowers' time in
repayment, the use of deferments and forbearances, estimated incomes
and filing statuses, and annual balances. For these estimates, we also
imputed whether the borrower would be eligible for the waivers related
to CDR or GE in proposed Sec. Sec. 30.86 through 30.88. Therefore, we
are able to identify the borrowers in the IDR submodel who would be
eligible for one of the proposed waivers and incorporate that effect
either by ending the payment cycle for borrowers who receive a total
balance waiver or eliminating the excess balance for borrowers who
would be eligible for waivers under either Sec. Sec. 30.81 or 30.82.
Partial forgiveness of balances for borrowers already modeled to be
on an IDR plan can have three different effects depending upon whether
or not the borrower was expected to get IDR forgiveness prior to these
waivers, and whether the waiver changes that anticipated outcome. These
effects are:
1. Before and after the policy is applied, borrowers are expected
to receive some IDR forgiveness at the end of their repayment term. For
these borrowers, the waivers would affect the amount ultimately
forgiven, but because payments are based upon income and
[[Page 27605]]
the amount of time borrowers are expected to repay is unchanged, there
is no effect on the amount of anticipated future payments.
2. The borrower was expected to receive IDR forgiveness before the
policy's application, but afterward is now expected to pay off their
balance before receiving IDR forgiveness. Because these borrowers are
now expected to repay in less time, there is some reduction in the
amount of anticipated future payments.
3. Before applying the policy, the borrower was expected to retire
their loan balance prior to receiving IDR forgiveness, but as a result
of the policy is now expected to retire their balance sooner. Because
these borrowers are now expected to repay in less time, there is some
reduction in the amount of anticipated future payments.
We project that most borrowers modeled to be on IDR would end up in
the first group. Since these borrowers would not see a change in the
amount they pay before receiving forgiveness, we do not assign a cost
to the waivers for these borrowers. Any costs associated with the
forgiveness of amounts above the balance owed at repayment entry for
IDR borrowers is limited to the minority of borrowers in the second and
third groups, for whom the forgiveness reduces the number of payments
needed to fully repay their loan. The result is we do not anticipate
significant costs for the waivers that would be granted under
Sec. Sec. 30.81 or 30.82 for borrowers in IDR.
We are not assigning an estimated outyear budget cost to the
provisions in Sec. 30.84 related to borrowers who are eligible for
forgiveness on a repayment plan but have not successfully enrolled in
such plan. We already assign a high percentage of future borrowers who
would be eligible for forgiveness on an IDR plan as being in an IDR
plan, including those with lower balances. Therefore, our assumption is
that this provision will only affect borrowers who have already
accumulated time in repayment.
For estimates related to the effects of the proposed waiver
provisions on borrowers with loans not in IDR plans, the Department's
approach is to: (1) estimate the potential waiver amounts borrowers
would be eligible for and aggregate them by loan cohort, loan type, and
budget risk group used in the SLM; (2) Add the waiver amounts for non-
defaulted, non-IDR borrowers to the Department's baseline DDB
assumption in FY 2025; and (3) remove the amounts associated with the
waiver provisions from defaulted, non-IDR borrowers from the baseline
collections assumption. The revised IDR, DDB and collections groups are
run in a SLM scenario for each provision to generate the estimates in
Table 4.1. To produce the potential waiver amounts in Step 1 of this
process, the Department developed a loan level file based on the FY2022
sample of NSLDS information used for preparing budget estimates.
Information from this file allows the evaluation of times in repayment
that qualify for one of the provisions and anticipated balances at the
end of FY2024 for use in calculating the amount that the Secretary may
waive for borrowers who have experienced balance growth.
To help estimate the costs of Sec. Sec. 30.86 through 30.88, as
well as Sec. 682.403(b)(3), the Department reviewed information about
institutions that lost eligibility to participate in title IV for CDR
and the relevant timeframes for those actions and identified loans that
would be eligible for a CDR-based waiver under Sec. 30.86 and Sec.
682.403(b)(3). Similarly, we identified loans for borrowers that
entered repayment within a fiscal year of an institution's closure in
the list of closed schools and assumed they would be eligible for a
total balance waiver under Sec. 30.85 and Sec. 682.403(b)(3).\102\ To
estimate the effects of Sec. 30.88, similar identification was made of
students with outstanding loan balances who attended GE programs that
failed the GE metrics based on the data from the 2015, 2016, and 2017
Award Years released in 2023 and did not have any students who received
Title IV aid from 2018 onwards, as shown in Table 3.10. Approximately
7.4 percent of loans made by cohort 2024 in our sample qualified for
total balance waiver under one of these provisions. The proposed
waivers in these three sections are also applicable going forward, but
the Department does not estimate a significant cost related to the CDR
or closed school waiver provisions. No institutions have lost
eligibility based on CDR performance since the 2014 CDR rates and only
28 institutions have lost eligibility on this basis since 1997, so we
do not expect this to be a significant source of waivers for future
cohorts. We also assume that closed school discharges for future loan
cohorts are already captured in our baseline estimates especially given
the automatic closed school discharge provision now in effect.\103\
Therefore, the primary source of outyear costs estimated for these
provisions is Gainful Employment performance, and a separate process
using the results of the model used to estimate the cost of that
regulation was used to generate an estimate for cohorts 2021-2034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Federal Student Aid, Closed School Search File.xlsx
downloaded 2/15/2024 from https://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/PEPS/closedschools.html.
\103\ These provisions are currently administratively stayed
pending appeal in Career Colleges and Schools of Texas v. U.S.
Department of Education, No. 23-50491 (5th Cir.). Because the rule
has not been permanently enjoined nor has a court found that the
challenge to the rule is likely to succeed on the merits, the
Department maintains this assumption for these purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These estimates are all based off the same random sample of
borrowers that is used for all other budget estimation activity related
to Federal student loans for the Department. Currently, the most recent
sample available is from the end of FY2022, which is the best currently
available data that maintains the Department's consistent scoring
practices. The Department recognizes from its general ledger records
that there have been a significant number of loan discharges granted
since that sample was pulled. This particularly includes forgiveness
tied to IDR and PSLF.
In this NPRM, the Department provides our best budget estimates
based on the most recent sample used in the required baseline, while
noting that this data does not allow the Department to adjust for these
recent discharges because they occurred after the date the sample used
in that baseline was generated. The Department's PB2025 baseline
projects its best estimates of future discharges based on the sample
data and other information available when the baseline is developed. As
a new sample is drawn and updated balances and loan information are
available for analysis, we will incorporate that into the analysis of
these waiver provisions in the final rule so that we do not attribute
existing discharges to these waivers. For instance, between 2022 and
2023 the Department approved hundreds of thousands of additional
discharges for borrowers through fixes to IDR and PSLF as well as
automatic relief for borrowers with a total and permanent disability,
and discharges based upon borrower defense findings and covered by
related court settlements. These discharges include almost $44 billion
in approved discharges for more than 901,000 borrowers through IDR,
approximately 200,000 borrowers through a court settlement, and more
than 150,000 borrowers through PSLF. The discharges also include a few
tens of thousands of borrowers through total and permanent disability
discharges. The Department also approved roughly 10,000 new discharges
based upon borrower defense to repayment findings
[[Page 27606]]
and continued processing relief for previously approved discharges.
While the Department's best estimates based on the most recent
sample cannot adjust for such discharges for the reasons explained
above, we can anticipate these different types of discharges are most
likely to affect certain provisions. Discharges through income-based
repayment could primarily reduce the costs of Sec. 30.83; those for
PSLF could primarily affect the cost of Sec. 30.81; and those for
borrower defense and other types of discharges could primarily affect
Sec. 30.82 because these borrowers are less likely to be on an IDR
plan, or they could affect the costs of Sec. Sec. 30.85 through 30.88
because some of these borrowers may have otherwise been eligible for a
closed school loan discharge or attended programs that failed to
provide sufficient financial value because they failed to meet
standards of debt-to-earnings or earnings premium and have closed. We
anticipate having a more recent sample for FY2023 available by the time
we write a final rule. As a result, we anticipate that final rule would
reflect those discharges that have already occurred, which may affect
the results in the net budget estimate for the final rule.
Gainful Employment
The Department used the information about projected passage and
failure rates of GE programs (also described as program transition
rates) in the 2023 final GE regulation \104\ along with enrollment and
average loans in the associated categories and respective years to
calculate the total amount of Federal loans that students in programs
that fail GE metrics will get relief from 2021-2034 under Sec. 30.86.
In our modeling we do not project that institutions will voluntarily
close programs prior to a failure or other Secretarial action based on
failing to deliver sufficient financial value, so we do not include any
modeling for Sec. 30.87. The rates for 2026 represent the program
transition rates before the second GE metrics will be published and
programs could lose eligibility for students who attend to borrow
Federal loans and receive Pell Grants. For our budget estimate, the
time frame for applying these rates was extended back to 2021 to
account for students who attended during the years on which the metrics
are based and would subsequently get relief on their associated Federal
loans. As done in the analyses of the 2014 and 2023 GE regulations, the
Department assumes institutions at risk of warning or sanction would
take at least some steps to improve program performance by improving
program quality, increasing job placement and academic support staff,
and lowering prices (leading to lower levels of debt). Evidence and
further discussion of this can be found in the 2023 GE regulation.
Therefore, the rates for 2027 to 2033 represent the program transition
rates after programs could be sanctioned and reflect an increase in the
probability of having a passing result. In this analysis, the rates for
2027 to 2033 were used in calculating the amount of total relief for
cohorts 2027 to 2034, extending to the last outyear of the current
budget window.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ 88 FR 70158 (October 10, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate the percent of enrollment by program type, performance
category, and cohort that would receive relief, the program transition
rates for the given year were transformed to account for students whose
loans would be eligible for forgiveness in that year, in the next year,
and two years out. These percents are shown below in Table 4.2. For all
enrollment at programs that fail for a second time and are deemed to
become ineligible moving forward, students in qualifying cohorts would
be eligible to receive relief on their associated loans to attend those
programs, which is indicated by the 100 percent for pre-ineligible
programs. To estimate the percent of enrollment at programs with one
failure (for D/E, EP, or both) whose students would be eligible for
forgiveness in the next year, the rate of one failure was multiplied by
the rate of a following second failure that would cause the program to
become ineligible moving forward. To estimate the percent of enrollment
at programs that are passing in a given year but whose students would
be eligible to receive relief in two years, the rate of a passing
program getting a failure in the next cycle was multiplied by the rate
of it failing again. For example, the program transition assumptions
for GE programs in the 2023 GE rule \105\ shows that for 4-year
programs in 2027, the rate of passing programs expected to fail D/E,
EP, or both in the next year are 3.1 percent, 0 percent, and 0.2
percent, respectively. The rates of each of these paths for a passing
program to fail a metric in the following year were multiplied by the
rates of the program failing the same or both metrics again and
becoming ineligible, 73.5 percent for EP, 87.7 percent for DE, and 89.6
percent for both. Once those two sets of rates are multiplied by their
failure status and summed together, the final estimate for the percent
of enrollment at passing programs in 2027 to become eligible for relief
in 2 years is 2.5 percent, calculated by ((3.1 percent * 73.5 percent)
+ (0 percent * 87.7 percent) + (0.2 percent * 89.6 percent)). Last,
students at programs that were already deemed ineligible in the past
would not receive Federal aid to attend and therefore not be eligible
to receive relief on those loans, which is indicated by the 0 percent
for ineligible programs. These percentages were multiplied by the
enrollment and average loans calculated in the 2023 GE regulation in
the associated categories (loan type and budget risk group) and
respective years (cohorts 2021-2026 and 2027-2034) to calculate the
total loans that would be eligible for relief under Sec. 30.86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ 88 FR 70158 (October 10, 2023).
Table 4.2--Percent of Enrollment That Would Be Eligible for Relief by
Program Type and Performance Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021-2026 2027-2034
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proprietary 2-year or less
Pass.......................... 7.8 5.3
Fail D/E only................. 81.2 76.2
Fail EP only.................. 89.2 84.2
Fail Both..................... 96.6 91.6
Pre-Ineligible................ 100.0 100.0
Ineligible.................... 0.0 0.0
Public and Nonprofit 2-year or
less
Pass.......................... 2.2 0.8
Fail D/E only................. 39.5 34.5
[[Page 27607]]
Fail EP only.................. 52.7 47.7
Fail Both..................... 70.9 65.9
Pre-Ineligible................ 100.0 100.0
Ineligible.................... 0.0 0.0
4-year
Pass.......................... 4.7 2.5
Fail D/E only................. 78.6 73.6
Fail EP only.................. 96.5 91.3
Fail Both..................... 94.6 89.6
Pre-Ineligible................ 100.0 100.0
Ineligible.................... 0.0 0.0
Graduate
Pass.......................... 2.4 0.4
Fail D/E only................. 80.1 75.1
Fail EP only.................. 0.0 0.0
Fail Both..................... 91.3 86.3
Pre-Ineligible................ 100.0 100.0
Ineligible.................... 0.0 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once estimated, the dollar amounts of forgiveness from this gainful
employment performance metric is aggregated by cohort, loan type, and
budget risk group and divided by the net loan volume for those same
categories. This generated an adjustment factor based on the modeled
future GE rate performance that is added to the PB2025 baseline DDB
rate. To get the full potential cost of the GE related provisions,
those increased DDB rates were fed into the second step of the main
estimation process for the non-IDR estimate so that the combined
effects on DDB can be loaded as one DDB assumption group in the SLM as
increased DDB rates. This resulted in the increase in costs associated
with the gainful employment provision of approximately $27.2 billion
for cohorts 1994-2034.
Budget Impact Sensitivities
While the primary estimates presented in Table 4.1 are based on the
best data the Department has available currently, we recognize some of
the impacts depend on borrower action in the period since our data was
extracted and the implementation of the proposed waiver provisions. One
effect is the response of programs and institutions if they have a
program that fails the GE regulations. The primary estimate includes
assumptions that some failing programs improve and therefore do not
fail again and lose access to title IV, HEA programs. In the
alternative budget scenario, we model the effects if there is no
improvement by failing GE programs. We use the results of that scenario
from the gainful employment final rule to estimate the higher outyear
costs displayed in Table 4.3.
Another modeling assumption that affects the net budget impact of
the proposed waivers relates to the payment behavior of borrowers in FY
2024. Payments and interest have resumed following the multi-year
COVID-19 payment pause and the extent to which borrowers do not make
payments and accumulate additional interest or make payments and
therefore reduce interest that has already accumulated will affect the
net budget impact. The Department has looked at payment reports from
the initial months since the return to repayment and looked at the
percentage of outstanding balances in repayment were less than 31 days
delinquent. In the primary net budget impact score, we assumed that
half of the borrowers that were more than 31 days late in the non-IDR,
non-defaulted part of our sample would start to make payments prior to
the rule taking effect and did not add additional interest to their
balance. For this alternative, we added a year of interest to all
borrowers in deferment, forbearance, or over 30 days delinquent
statuses to estimate the effect of this payment behavior factor.
Table 4.3--Alternate Budget Scenarios
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification
Alternative scenario Description score (1994- Outyear score Total (1994-
2024) (2025-2034) 2034)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payers in FY2024................... The estimated balances in 68,272 0 68,272
FY2024 depend on
assumption about borrower
payment behavior. This
alternative adds a year of
interest to the 37% of
borrowers not in a good
payment status (under 30
days delinquent) in
January 2024 payment
reporting. This compares
to the primary estimate in
which half of those
borrowers in delinquent,
deferred, or forbearance
status were treated as
paying.
GE No Program Improvement.......... Uses the No Program 11,927 19,835 31,762
Improvement estimate from
GE modeling to estimate
increased outyear impact
from more students being
in programs that fail the
accountability measures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 27608]]
5. Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A-4, we have prepared an accounting
statement showing the classification of the expenditures associated
with the provisions of these regulations. Table 5.1 provides our best
estimate of the changes in annual monetized transfers that may result
from these proposed regulations.
Table 5.1--Accounting Statement: Classification of Estimated
Expenditures
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction in loans that are unlikely to be Not quantified
repaid in full in a reasonable period.........
Increased ability for borrowers to repay loans Not quantified
that have grown beyond their balance at
repayment entry...............................
Reduced administrative burden for Department Not quantified
due to reduced servicing, default, and
collection costs..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2%
Costs of compliance with paperwork requirements $12.06
for guaranty agencies and commercial FFEL loan
holders.......................................
One-time administrative costs to Federal 3.4
government to update systems and contracts to
implement the proposed regulations............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced transfers from borrowers due to 2%
waivers:......................................
Based on excess balances upon entering 1,197
repayment of IDR borrowers under income limits
in Sec. 30.81...............................
Based on excess balances upon entering 6,777
repayment of all borrowers in Sec. 30.82....
Based on time in repayment in Sec. 30.83..... 2,893
Based on eligibility for forgiveness in IDR in 945
Sec. 30.84..................................
Based on eligibility for forgiveness from 826
Closed School in Sec. 30.85.................
Based on eligibility for forgiveness from CDR 2
in Sec. 30.86...............................
Based on eligibility for forgiveness from GE in 2,848
Sec. 30.86-Sec. 30.88.....................
Based on provisions affecting commercial FFEL 1,861
borrowers in Sec. 682.403...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expenditures are classified as transfers from the Federal government to
affected student loan borrowers.
6. Alternatives Considered
The Department considered the option of not proposing these
regulations. However, we believe these rules are important to inform
the public about how the Secretary would exercise his longstanding
authority related to waiver in a consistent manner. The Department
thinks foregoing these proposed regulations would reduce transparency
about the Secretary's discretionary use of waiver. For all the reasons
detailed above, such waivers would produce substantial, critical
benefits for borrowers and the Department, among others, and reduce
some costs for the Department as well. Overall, the Department's
analysis of costs and benefits weighs in favor of the proposed
regulations.
As part of the development of these proposed regulations, the
Department engaged in a negotiated rulemaking process in which we
received comments and proposals from non-Federal negotiators
representing numerous impacted constituencies. These included higher
education institutions, legal assistance organizations, consumer
advocacy organizations, student loan borrowers, civil rights
organizations, state officials, and state attorneys general. Non-
Federal negotiators submitted a variety of proposals relating to the
issues under discussion. Information about these proposals is available
on our negotiated rulemaking website at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2023/.
In drafting this NPRM, the Department considered many alternatives.
For provisions related to waiving balances beyond what a borrower owed
upon entering repayment, we considered several ideas that would have
provided a capped amount of relief for borrowers that met certain
conditions. For instance, during negotiated rulemaking we considered
capping the amount of a waiver at $20,000 for borrowers on IDR plans
with incomes at or below 225 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines.
However, many negotiators raised concerns that the amount of relief
granted was too low to fully address the issue of balance growth. They
also raised concerns that having such an income cap would miss many
middle-income borrowers who have also experienced balance growth and
need assistance. We were convinced by these comments that it would be
better to provide relief to a wider group of borrowers and instead
protect against providing undue benefits to the highest income
borrowers, which is reflected in this proposed rule in Sec. 30.81. We
thought this approach was superior to alternative ways to address
concerns about targeting, such as providing a sliding scale of relief
that would decrease as income rises. We were concerned that such an
approach would be operationally complicated and confusing to explain to
borrowers. Similarly, we considered providing up to $10,000 in relief
for borrowers not on an IDR plan or whose incomes were above a certain
threshold as opposed to the $20,000 limit proposed in this draft rule.
However, we were persuaded during negotiated rulemaking that a relief
threshold of $10,000 would miss providing sufficient assistance to
large numbers of borrowers who need the help to successfully manage
their debts.
Regarding the waiver in Sec. 30.83 for loans that entered
repayment a long time ago, we considered applying the thresholds for
shortened time to forgiveness present in the SAVE plan. This provision
provides forgiveness after as few as 10 years of payments for borrowers
who originally took out $12,000 or less, with a sliding scale of an
additional year of payments for each added $1,000 in borrowing.
However, we thought such an approach would not be appropriate because
this timeline is only available under the SAVE plan. By contrast, the
goal of Sec. 30.83 is to address situations where borrowers have been
unable to fully repay in a reasonable time and have not even been able
to repay in full over an extended period. This extended period is
consistent with
[[Page 27609]]
the forgiveness timelines on other IDR plans, which provide repayment
terms of up to 20 or 25 years.
For the provisions in Sec. 682.403, the Department considered two
alternatives. We considered permitting waivers for loans that first
entered repayment 20 years ago instead of 25. However, the only IDR
plan available to FFEL borrowers provides forgiveness after 25 years,
so we did not think it was appropriate to select a forgiveness period
that is otherwise unavailable for these borrowers. We also considered
including a provision similar to Sec. 30.84 for borrowers who are
eligible for but haven't applied for IBR. However, we do not believe we
would have the data to make such a determination so did not include it.
7. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary certifies, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), that this final regulatory action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of ``small
entities.''
These regulations will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because they are focused on
arrangements between the borrower and the Department. They do not
affect institutions of higher education in any way, and these entities
are typically the focus on the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis. As
noted in the Paperwork Reduction Act section, burden related to the
final regulations will be assessed in a separate information collection
process and that burden is expected to involve individuals more than
institutions of any size.
8. Paperwork Reduction Act
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections
of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps provide that: the public
understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can
provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden
(time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are
clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact
of collection requirements on respondents.
Proposed Sec. 682.403 in this NPRM contains information collection
requirements. Under the PRA, the Department would, at the required
time, submit a copy of these sections and an Information Collections
Request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review.
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the
corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently
valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for
failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection
instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number. In
the final regulations, we would display the control numbers assigned by
OMB to any information collection requirements proposed in this NPRM
and adopted in the final regulations.
Section 682.403--Waiver of FFEL Program loan debt.
Requirements: The NPRM proposes to amend part 682 by adding a new
Sec. 682.403 to allow the Secretary to waive specific Federal Family
Education Loan (FFEL) Program loans held by private lenders or managed
by guaranty agencies.
In the case of FFEL Program loans held by a private loan holder or
a guaranty agency, under proposed Sec. 682.403(a) the Secretary may
waive the outstanding balance of a FFEL Program loan when a loan first
entered into repayment on or before July 1, 2000; when the borrower is
otherwise eligible for, but has not successfully applied for, a closed
school discharge; or when the borrower attended an institution that
lost its title IV eligibility due to a high CDR, if the borrower was
included in the cohort whose debt was used to calculate the CDR or
rates that were the basis for the institution's loss of eligibility. If
the Secretary chose to exercise his discretion under this section, the
Secretary would notify the lender that a loan qualifies for a waiver
and the lender would be instructed to submit a claim to the guaranty
agency. The guaranty agency would pay the claim, be reimbursed by the
Secretary, and assign the loan to the Secretary. After the loan is
assigned, the Secretary would grant the waiver.
Sections 682.403(c), and (d) describe the specific requirements of
the waiver claim filing process for a lender, and guaranty agency, with
the Department.
Section 682.403(c) Notification provides that if the Secretary
determines that a loan qualifies for a waiver, the Secretary notifies
the lender and directs the lender to submit a waiver claim to the
applicable guaranty agency and to suspend collection activity or to
maintain suspension of collection activities on the loan.
Section 682.403(d) Claim Procedures describes the waiver claim
procedures. Under proposed Sec. 682.403(d)(1), the guaranty agency
would be required to establish and enforce standards and procedures for
the timely filing of waiver claims by lenders.
Proposed Sec. 682.403(d)(2) would require the lender to submit a
claim for the full outstanding balance of the loan to the guaranty
agency within 75 days of the date the lender received the notification
from the Secretary. Under proposed Sec. 682.403(d)(3), the lender
would be required to provide the guaranty agency with an original or a
true and exact copy of the promissory note and the notification from
the Secretary when filing a waiver claim. Proposed Sec. 682.403(d)(4)
would allow a lender to provide alternative documentation deemed
acceptable to the Secretary if the lender is not in possession of an
original or true and exact copy of the promissory note.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 682.403(d)(5) and (d)(6) would require the
guaranty agency to review the waiver claim and determine whether it
meets the applicable requirements. If the guaranty agency determines
that the claim meets the requirements specified in proposed Sec. Sec.
682.403(d)(3) and 682.403(d)(4) the guaranty agency would be required
to pay the claim within 30 days of the date the claim was received.
Proposed Sec. 682.403(d)(9)(i) would require the guaranty agency
to assign the loan to the Secretary within 75 days of the date the
guaranty agency pays the claim and receives the reimbursement payment.
If the guaranty agency is the loan holder, under proposed Sec.
682.403(d)(9)(ii) the guaranty agency would be required to assign the
loan on the date that the guaranty agency receives the notice from the
Secretary.
Burden Calculations
Sec. 682.403(d)(1) Claim Procedures.
The proposed regulatory changes would add burden to lenders and
guaranty agencies and would require a new collection in the Federal
Student Aid information collection catalog. As noted in Table 3.11 in
this RIA and explained in the costs, benefits, and transfers section,
we currently estimate that approximately 900,000 commercial FFEL
borrowers would qualify for this waiver claim. Of these, an estimated
300,000 are currently in default at a guaranty agency and therefore are
not affected by the claim procedures related to lenders. These waivers
affect the current 314 lenders (268 For-Profit and 46 Not-For-Profit)
and the current 12
[[Page 27610]]
guaranty agencies (6 Not-For-Profit and 6 Public). Among those 12
guaranty agencies we estimate that about 80 percent of borrowers would
be processed by Not-For-Profit guarantors and 20 percent would be
processed by Public guarantors. The costs are estimated using the
median hourly wage of $31.60 reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
for loan officers.\106\ We estimated the number of hours needed per
task in the sections below based upon discussions with Department staff
that have worked on similar processes in the past. These figures and
considerations are the basis for the following estimations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes132072.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed regulations in Sec. 682.403(d)(1) Claim Procedures
would require the 12 guaranty agencies to establish and enforce
standard procedures of timely waiver filing by affected lenders.
We estimate that these procedures would follow the current
discharge processes that guaranty agencies utilize, therefore
minimizing development of the new procedures. We estimate that it would
take each guaranty agency two hours to draft the required standard
procedures for a total of 24 hours (12 guaranty agencies x 2 hours).
Sec. 682.403(d)(1) Claim Procedures--OMB Control Number 1845-NEW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost $31.60 per
Affected entity Respondent Responses Burden hours hour
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private non-profit........................... 6 6 12 $379
Public....................................... 6 6 12 379
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 12 12 24 758
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. Sec. 682.403(d)(2), (3), and (4) Claim Procedures.
The proposed regulations in Sec. Sec. 682.403(d)(2), (3), and (4)
Claim Procedures would require affected lenders to submit claims to the
guaranty agencies based on the notification received from the
Department as established in Sec. 682.403(c) within seventy-five days
of receiving the notification. The documentation includes the original
or a true and exact copy of the promissory note, and the notification
received from the Department. If a lender does not have the original or
true and exact copy of the promissory note, it may submit alternate
documentation acceptable to the Secretary.
We are estimating that each lender would require three hours per
borrower to gather the required documentation together and prepare to
submit the documentation to the appropriate guaranty agency for a total
of 1,800,000 hours (600,000 borrowers x 3 hours).
Sec. Sec. 682.403(d)(2), (3), and (4) Claim Procedures--OMB Control Number 1845-NEW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost $31.60 per
Affected entity Respondent Responses Burden hours hour
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private non-profit........................... 46 90,000 270,000 $8,532,000
For-profit................................... 268 510,000 1,530,000 48,348,000
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 314 600,000 1,800,000 56,880,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 682.403(d)(5) Claim Procedures.
The proposed regulations in Sec. 682.403(d)(5) Claim Procedures
would require affected guaranty agencies to review the waiver claim and
supporting documentation from the lenders to determine that the
document meets the requirements of Sec. Sec. 682.403(d)(3), and (4).
We estimate that it would take each guaranty agency one hour to
review the incoming documentation for a total of 600,000 hours (600,000
borrower documentation files x 1 hour).
Sec. 682.403(d)(5) Claim Procedures--OMB Control Number 1845-NEW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost $31.60 per
Affected entity Respondent Responses Burden hours hour
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private non-profit........................... 6 480,000 480,000 $15,168,000
Public....................................... 6 120,000 120,000 3,792,000
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 12 600,000 600,000 18,960,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 682.403(d)(6) Claim Procedures.
The proposed regulations in Sec. 682.403(d)(6) Claim Procedures
would require affected guaranty agencies, after determining waiver
claims submitted by the lender meet the regulatory requirements, to pay
the waiver claim to the lenders within 30 days of receipt of the waiver
claim.
We estimate that it would take each guaranty agency 20 minutes to
prepare and submit the payment for a total of 198,000 hours (600,000
borrower waiver claim payment x .33 hours).
[[Page 27611]]
Sec. 682.403(d)(6) Claim Procedures--OMB Control Number 1845-NEW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost $31.60 per
Affected entity Respondent Responses Burden hours hour
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private non-profit........................... 6 480,000 158,400 $5,005,440
Public....................................... 6 120,000 39,600 1,251,360
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 12 600,000 198,000 6,256,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 682.403(d)(9) Claim Procedures.
The proposed regulations in Sec. 682.403(d)(9) Claim Procedures
would require affected guaranty agencies to assign a loan that it paid
through the waiver claim process within 75 days of the date that it
pays the waiver claim to the lender or the date of notification from
the Department if the guaranty agency is the lender.
We estimate that it would take each guaranty agency one hour to
assign the loans which have been paid through the waiver claim process
or that was otherwise already at the guarantor for a total of 900,000
hours (900,000 borrower documentation files x 1 hour).
Sec. 682.403(d)(9) Claim Procedures--OMB Control Number 1845-NEW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost $31.60 per
Affected entity Respondent Responses Burden hours hour
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private non-profit........................... 6 720,000 720,000 $22,752,000
Public....................................... 6 180,000 180,000 5,688,000
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 12 900,000 900,000 28,440,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the discussions above, the following chart
describes the sections of the proposed regulations involving
information collections, the information being collected and the
collections that the Department would submit to OMB for approval and
public comment under the PRA, and the estimated costs associated with
the information collections. The monetized net cost of the increased
burden for institutions, lenders, guaranty agencies and students, using
wage data developed using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. For
institutions, lenders, and guaranty agencies we have used the median
hourly wage for Loan Officers, $31.60 per hour according to BLS.
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes132072.htm.
Collection of Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control No. and Estimated cost
Regulatory section Information collection estimated burden $31.60 per hour
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 682.403(d)(1).............. Under proposed Sec. 682.403(d)(1) 1845-NEW; 24 hours.. $758
the guaranty agency would be
required to establish and enforce
standards and procedures for the
timely filing of waiver claims by
lenders.
Sec. 682.403(d)(2), (3), & (4).. The proposed regulations in 1845-NEW; 1,800,000. 56,880,000
682.403(d)(2), (3), and (4) Claim
Procedures would require affected
lenders to submit claims to the
guaranty agencies based on the
notification received from the
Department as established in
682.403(c) within seventy-five
days of receiving the
notification. The documentation
includes the original or a true
and exact copy of the promissory
note, and the notification
received from the Department. If a
lender does not have the original
or true and exact copy of the
promissory note, it may submit
alternate documentation acceptable
to the Secretary.
Sec. 682.403(d)(5).............. The proposed regulations in 1845-NEW; 600,000... 18,960,000
682.403(d)(5) Claim Procedures
would require affected guaranty
agencies to review the waiver
claim and supporting documentation
from the lenders to determine that
the document meets the
requirements of 682.403(d)(3), and
(4).
Sec. 682.403(d)(6).............. The proposed regulations in 1845-NEW; 198,000... 6,256,800
682.403(d)(6) Claim Procedures
would require affected guaranty
agencies, after determining waiver
claims submitted by the lender
meet the regulatory requirements,
to pay the waiver claim to the
lenders within thirty days of
receipt of the waiver claim.
[[Page 27612]]
Sec. 682.403(d)(9).............. The proposed regulations in 1845-NEW; 900,000... 28,440,000
682.403(d)(9) Claim Procedures
would require affected guaranty
agencies to assign a loan that it
paid through the waiver claim
process with- in seventy-five days
of the date that it pays the
waiver claim to the lender or the
date of notification from the
Department if the guaranty agency
is the lender.
----------------------------------------
Total......................... ................................... 1845-NEW; 3,498,024. 110,537,588
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to review and comment on the Information Collection
Requests, please follow the instructions in the ADDRESSES section of
this notification. Note: The Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs in OMB and the Department review all comments posted at
www.regulations.gov.
In preparing your comments, you may want to review the Information
Collection Request, including the supporting materials, in
www.regulations.gov by using the Docket ID number specified in this
notification. This proposed collection is identified as proposed
collection 1845-NEW.
We consider your comments on these proposed collections of
information in--
Deciding whether the proposed collections are necessary
for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the
information will have practical use.
Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of
the proposed collections, including the validity of our methodology and
assumptions.
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information we collect; and
Minimizing the burden on those who must respond.
Consistent with 5 CFR 1320.8(d), the Department is soliciting
comments on the information collection through this document. Between
30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register, OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections
of information contained in these proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria. Therefore, to make certain that
OMB gives your comments full consideration, it is important that OMB
receives your comments on these Information Collection Requests by May
17, 2024.
9. Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive
Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened
Federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State
and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
10. Assessment of Education Impact
In accordance with section 411 of the General Education Provisions
Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, the Secretary particularly requests comments on
whether these final regulations would require transmission of
information that any other agency or authority of the United States
gathers or makes available.
11. Federalism
Executive Order 13132 requires us to provide meaningful and timely
input by State and local elected officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. ``Federalism
implications'' means substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The proposed regulations do not have Federalism
implications.
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person(s)
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The
Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that
may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive,
an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other
accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published
in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
List of Subjects
34 CFR Part 30
Claims, Income taxes.
34 CFR Part 682
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities,
Loan programs-education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Student aid, Vocational education.
Miguel A. Cardona,
Secretary of Education.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary of
Education proposes to amend parts 30 and 682 of title 34 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 30--DEBT COLLECTION
0
1. The authority citation for part 30 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3(a)(1), and 1226a-1, 31 U.S.C.
3711(e), 31 U.S.C. 3716(b) and 3720A, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 30.1 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2).
0
b. Revising paragraph (b).
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(7) and (c)(8) as paragraphs (c)(8) and
(c)(9).
0
d. Adding a new paragraph (c)(7).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 30.1 What administrative actions may the Secretary take to
collect a debt?
(a) * * *
[[Page 27613]]
(2) Refer the debt to the Government Accountability Office for
collection in accordance with Sec. 30.70(f).
* * * * *
(b) In taking any of the actions listed in paragraph (a) of this
section, the Secretary complies with the requirements of the Federal
Claims Collection Standards (FCCS) at 31 CFR parts 900-904 that are not
inconsistent with the requirements of this part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(7) Waive repayment of a debt under subpart G of this part;
* * * * *
0
3. Add Sec. 30.9 to read as follows:
Sec. 30.9 Severability.
If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person,
act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the
application of its provisions to any other person, act, or practice
will not be affected thereby.
Sec. 30.20 [Amended]
0
4. Section 30.20 is amended by:
0
(a) In paragraph (a)(1)(ii), removing the words ``IRS tax refund'' and
adding, in their place, the words ``Treasury Offset Program''.
0
(b) In paragraph (b)(2), adding the word ``or'' after the semicolon.
0
(c) In paragraph (b)(3)(ii), removing the semicolon and the word ``or''
and adding, in their place, a period.
0
(d) Removing paragraph (b)(4).
0
5. Section 30.23 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 30.23 How must a debtor request an opportunity to inspect and
copy records relating to a debt?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) All information provided to the debtor in the notice under
Sec. 30.22 or Sec. 30.33(b) that identifies the debtor, the debt, and
the program under which the debt arose, together with any corrections
of that identifying information; and
* * * * *
Sec. 30.25 [Amended]
0
6. Section 30.25(c)(1)(ii)is amended by removing the citation
``(a)(1)'' and adding, in its place, the citation ``(a)''.
Sec. 30.27 [Amended]
0
7. Section 30.27(c) is amended by removing the citation ``4 CFR
102.11'' and adding, in its place, the citation ``31 CFR 901.8''.
Sec. 30.29 [Amended]
0
8. Section 30.29(a)(3) is amended by removing the citation ``4 CFR
102.3'' and adding, in its place, the citation ``31 CFR 901.3''.
Sec. 30.30 [Amended]
0
9. Section 30.30(a)(3) is amended by removing the citation ``4 CFR
102.3'' and adding, in its place, the citation ``31 CFR 901.3''.
0
10. Section 30.33 is amended by revising the section heading to read as
follows:
Sec. 30.33 What procedures does the Secretary follow for Treasury
Offset Program offsets?
* * * * *
0
11. Add Sec. 30.39 to read as follows:
Sec. 30.39 Severability.
If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person,
act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the
application of its provisions to any other person, act, or practice
will not be affected thereby.
0
12. Section 30.62 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1), and
(d)(1).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 30.62 When does the Secretary forego interest, administrative
costs, or penalties?
(a) For a debt of any amount based on a loan, the Secretary may
refrain from collecting interest or charging administrative costs or
penalties to the extent that compromise of these amounts is appropriate
under the standards for compromise of a debt contained in 31 CFR part
902 or to the extent that waiver of repayment of these amounts is
appropriate under Sec. 30.80.
(b) * * *
(1) Compromise of these amounts is appropriate under the standards
for compromise of a debt contained in 31 CFR part 902; or
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) The Secretary has accepted an installment plan under 31 CFR
901.8;
* * * * *
0
13. Add Sec. 30.69 to read as follows:
Sec. 30.69 Severability.
If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person,
act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the
application of its provisions to any other person, act, or practice
will not be affected thereby.
0
14. Section 30.70 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (c)(1),
(c)(2), and (e)(1) as follows:
Sec. 30.70 How does the Secretary exercise discretion to compromise a
debt or to suspend or terminate collection of a debt?
(a)(1) The Secretary may use the standards in the FCCS, 31 CFR part
902, to determine whether compromise of a debt is appropriate if the
debt arises under a program administered by the Department, unless
compromise of the debt is subject to paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *
(c)(1) The Secretary may use the standards in the FCCS, 31 CFR part
903, to determine whether suspension or termination of collection
action on a debt is appropriate.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the
Secretary--
* * * * *
(e)(1) Subject to paragraph (e)(2) of this section, under the
provisions of 31 CFR part 902 or 903, the Secretary may compromise a
debt in any amount, or suspend or terminate collection of a debt in any
amount, if the debt arises under the Federal Family Education Loan
Program authorized under title IV, part B, of the HEA, the William D.
Ford Federal Direct Loan Program authorized under title IV, part D of
the HEA, the Perkins Loan Program authorized under title IV, part E, of
the HEA, or the Health Education Assistance Loan Program authorized
under sections 701-720 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 292-
292o.
0
15. Add Sec. 30.79 to read as follows:
Sec. 30.79 Severability.
If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person,
act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the
application of its provisions to any other person, act, or practice
will not be affected thereby.
0
16. Add subpart G to read as follows:
Subpart G--Waiver of Federal Student Loan Debts
Sec.
30.80 Waiver of Federal student loan debts.
30.81 Waiver when the current balance exceeds the balance upon
entering repayment for borrowers on an IDR plan.
30.82 Waiver when the current balance exceeds the balance upon
entering repayment.
30.83 Waiver based on time since a loan first entered repayment.
30.84 Waiver when a loan is eligible for forgiveness based upon
repayment plan.
30.85 Waiver when a loan is eligible for a targeted forgiveness
opportunity.
30.86 Waiver based upon Secretarial actions.
30.87 Waiver following a closure prior to Secretarial actions.
30.88 Waiver for closed Gainful Employment programs with high debt-
to-earnings rates or low median earnings.
30.89 Severability.
[[Page 27614]]
Sec. 30.80 Waiver of Federal student loan debts.
The Secretary may waive all or part of any debts owed to the
Department arising under the Federal Family Education Loan Program
authorized under title IV, part B, of the HEA, the William D. Ford
Federal Direct Loan Program authorized under title IV, part D, of the
HEA, the Federal Perkins Loan Program authorized under title IV, part
E, of the HEA, and the Health Education Assistance Loan Program
authorized by sections 701-720 of the Public Health Service Act, 42
U.S.C. 292-292o, under the conditions included in, but not limited to,
Sec. Sec. 30.81 through 30.88.
Sec. 30.81 Waiver when the current balance exceeds the balance upon
entering repayment for borrowers on an IDR plan.
(a) Pursuant to the authority to waive debt that the Secretary is
unable to collect in full under the standards prescribed in 31 U.S.C.
3711(d), and subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the
Secretary may waive one time the amount by which each of a borrower's
loans has a total outstanding balance that exceeds--
(1) The original principal balance of that loan for loans disbursed
before January 1, 2005;
(2) The balance of that loan on the day after the end of its grace
period for loans disbursed on or after January 1, 2005;
(3) The balance of a Federal or Direct Parent and Graduate PLUS
Loan the day after it is fully disbursed; or
(4) The amounts determined under paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) of
this section, as applicable, for all loans repaid by a Federal
Consolidation Loan or a Direct Consolidation Loan.
(b) A borrower is eligible for the waiver described in paragraph
(a) of this section if--
(1) The borrower is enrolled in an IDR plan under Sec. Sec.
682.215, 685.209, or 685.221 as of a date determined by the Secretary;
and
(2) The borrower's adjusted gross income, or other calculation of
income as shown on documentation of income acceptable to the Secretary,
demonstrates that the borrower's annual income as calculated under
Sec. 685.209 is either--
(i) Less than or equal to $120,000 if the borrower files a Federal
tax return as single or married filing separately;
(ii) Less than or equal to $180,00 if the borrower files a Federal
tax return as a head of household; or
(iii) Less than or equal to $240,000 if the borrower is married and
files a joint Federal tax return or is a qualifying surviving spouse.
Sec. 30.82 Waiver when the current balance exceeds the balance upon
entering repayment.
(a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, the Secretary may
waive one time the lesser of $20,000 or the amount by which each of a
borrower's loans has a total outstanding balance that exceeds--
(1) The original principal balance of that loan for loans disbursed
before January 1, 2005;
(2) The balance of that loan on the day after the end of its grace
period for loans disbursed on or after January 1, 2005;
(3) The balance of a Federal or Direct Parent and Graduate PLUS
Loan the day after it is fully disbursed; or
(4) The amounts determined under paragraphs (a)(1), (2), or (3) of
this section, as applicable, for loans repaid by a Federal
Consolidation Loan or a Direct Consolidation Loan.
(b) A borrower who has received a waiver under Sec. 30.81 is not
eligible for a waiver under paragraph (a) of this section.
Sec. 30.83 Waiver based on time since a loan first entered repayment.
(a) The Secretary may waive the outstanding balance of a loan for a
borrower--
(1) Who is repaying only loans received for undergraduate study or
a Direct Consolidation Loan that repaid only loans received for
undergraduate study if the loan first entered repayment on or before
July 1, 2005; or
(2) Who has loans other than loans described in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section if the loan first entered repayment on or before July 1,
2000.
(b) For the purpose of this section, a loan enters repayment on--
(1) For a Federal Stafford Loan, a Direct Subsidized Loan, or a
Direct Unsubsidized Loan, the day after the initial grace period ends;
(2) For a Federal Parent and Graduate PLUS Loan or a Direct Parent
and Graduate PLUS Loan, the day the loan is fully disbursed;
(3) For a Federal Consolidation Loan or Direct Consolidation Loan
made before July 1, 2023, the earliest day as determined under
paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of this section for loans that were repaid by
that consolidation loan; or
(4) For a Direct Consolidation Loan made on or after July 1, 2023,
the latest day as determined under paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of this
section for loans that were repaid by that consolidation loan.
Sec. 30.84 Waiver when a loan is eligible for forgiveness based upon
repayment plan.
The Secretary may waive the entire outstanding balance of a loan if
the Secretary determines that a borrower is not enrolled in, but
otherwise meets the eligibility requirements for forgiveness under--
(a) An income-based repayment plan under Sec. 682.215 or Sec.
685.221;
(b) An income-contingent repayment plan under Sec. 685.209; or
(c) An alternative repayment plan under Sec. 685.208(l).
Sec. 30.85 Waiver when a loan is eligible for a targeted forgiveness
opportunity.
(a) The Secretary may waive the entire outstanding balance of a
loan if the Secretary determines that a borrower has not applied or not
successfully applied for, but otherwise meets the eligibility
requirements for, any loan discharge, cancellation, or forgiveness
opportunity under part 682 or 685.
(b) If the conditions for waiver in paragraph (a) of this section
are met but the loan has been repaid by a Federal Consolidation Loan or
Direct Consolidation Loan that has an outstanding balance, the
Secretary may waive the portion of the outstanding balance of the
consolidation loan attributable to such loan.
Sec. 30.86 Waiver based upon Secretarial actions.
(a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, the Secretary may
waive the entire outstanding balance of a loan associated with
attending an institution or a program at an institution if the
Secretary or other authorized Department official has issued a final
decision that terminated the institution or program's participation in
the title IV, HEA programs or denied the institution's request for
recertification, or the Secretary or other authorized Department
official has otherwise determined that the institution or the program
in which the student was enrolled is no longer eligible for its
students to receive assistance under the title IV, HEA programs and
that decision, denial, or determination was due, in whole or in part,
to any of the following circumstances:
(1) The program or institution has failed to meet an accountability
standard based on student outcomes established under the HEA or its
implementing regulations for determining eligibility for participation
in the title IV, HEA programs.
(2) The program or institution has failed to deliver sufficient
financial value to students, including in situations where the
institution or program has engaged in substantial misrepresentations,
substantial omissions, misconduct affecting student eligibility, or
other similar activities;
[[Page 27615]]
this paragraph applies to circumstances when the institution or program
has lost accreditation at least in part due to such activities.
(b) The waiver described in paragraph (a) of this section is
limited to loans that were borrowed to attend that program or
institution during the period that corresponds with the findings or
outcomes data that forms the basis for the action described in
paragraph (a) of this section, unless the Secretary determines that the
use of a different period is appropriate.
(c) If the conditions for waiver in paragraph (a) of this section
are met but the loan has been repaid by a Federal Consolidation Loan or
Direct Consolidation Loan that has an outstanding balance, the
Secretary may waive the portion of the outstanding balance of the
consolidation loan attributable to such loan.
Sec. 30.87 Waiver following a closure prior to Secretarial actions.
(a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, the Secretary may
waive the entire outstanding balance of a loan associated with
attending a program or institution if the program or institution has
closed and the Secretary or other authorized Department official has
determined that--
(1) Based on the most recent reliable data for that program or
institution, the program or institution has not satisfied, for at least
one year, an accountability standard based on student outcomes
established under the HEA or its implementing regulations for
determining eligibility for participation in the title IV, HEA
programs; or
(2) The program or institution--
(i) Failed to deliver sufficient financial value to students
including in situations where the institution or program has engaged in
substantial misrepresentations, substantial omissions, misconduct
affecting student eligibility, or other similar activities; this
paragraph applies to circumstances when the institution or program has
lost accreditation at least in part due to such activities; and
(ii) Is the subject of a program review, investigation, or any
other Department action that remains unresolved at the time of closure
and that is based, in whole or in part, on the conduct described in
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
(b) The waiver described in paragraph (a) of this section is
limited to loans that were borrowed to attend that program or
institution during the period that corresponds with the findings or
outcomes data that forms the basis for the action described in
paragraph (a) of this section, unless the Secretary determines that the
use of a different period is appropriate.
(c) If the conditions for waiver in paragraph (a) of this section
are met but the loan has been repaid by a Federal Consolidation Loan or
Direct Consolidation Loan that has an outstanding balance, the
Secretary may waive the portion of the outstanding balance of the
consolidation loan attributable to such loan.
Sec. 30.88 Waiver for closed Gainful Employment programs with high
debt-to-earnings rates or low median earnings.
(a) The Secretary may waive the outstanding balance of a loan
received by a borrower associated with enrollment in a Gainful
Employment (GE) program as described in 20 U.S.C. 1002(b)(1)(A)(i) and
(c)(1)(A) if--
(1) The program or institution closed;
(2) The Secretary makes the determination that the program was not
a program that prepares students to become a doctor of medicine or
osteopathy or a doctor of dental science; and
(3) For the period in which the borrower received loans for
enrollment in the program, the Secretary has reliable and available
data demonstrating that, for students who received title IV, HEA
assistance--
(i)(A) The median annual loan payment of graduates from the program
is greater than 20 percent of the median annual earnings for graduates,
minus 150 percent of the applicable Federal Poverty Guideline for the
year being measured or the denominator of such calculation is zero or
negative; and
(B) The median annual loan payment of graduates from the program is
greater than eight percent of the median annual earnings for graduates
of the program or the denominator of such calculation is zero; or
(ii) The median annual earnings of graduates from the program are
equal to or less than the median annual earnings for working adults
aged 25-34, who either worked during the year or indicated they were
unemployed (i.e., not employed but looking for and available to work)
when interviewed, with only a high school diploma (or recognized
equivalent)--
(A) In the State in which the institution is located; or
(B) Nationally, if fewer than 50 percent of the students in the
program are from the State where the institution is located, or if the
institution is a foreign institution.
(b) In determining whether a program meets the requirements under
paragraph (a) of this section, the Secretary--
(1) Identifies a program using the program's six-digit CIP code as
assigned by the institution or determined by the Secretary, in
combination with the institution's six-digit Office of Postsecondary
Education ID (OPEID) number and the program's credential level, unless
the Secretary does not have reliable and available data at the six
digit-level, in which case the Secretary will use the four-digit CIP
code;
(2) Calculates the annual loan payment based upon the average of--
(i) The interest rate on Direct Unsubsidized Loans for
undergraduate students for the three consecutive award years ending in
the latest completion year for the students whose median debt payment
is being calculated for graduates of undergraduate certificate
programs, post-baccalaureate certificate programs, and associate degree
programs; or
(ii) The interest rate on Direct Unsubsidized Loans for graduate
students for the three consecutive award years ending in the latest
completion year for the students whose median debt payment is being
calculated for graduates of graduate certificate programs and master's
degree programs; or
(iii) The interest rate on Direct Unsubsidized Loans for
undergraduate students for the six consecutive award years ending in
the latest completion year for the students whose median debt payment
is being calculated for graduates of bachelor's degree programs; or
(iv) The interest rate on Direct Unsubsidized Loans for graduate
students for the six consecutive award years ending in the latest
completion year for the students whose median debt payment is being
calculated for graduates of doctoral programs and first professional
degree programs; and
(3) Calculates the median annual earnings of program graduates by
considering earnings in the third year subsequent to graduation.
(c) The Secretary may also apply the waiver described in paragraph
(a) of this section for loans received for enrollment in a GE program
at an institution--
(1) If the institution has since closed;
(2) Prior to the closure, the institution received a majority of
its title IV, HEA funds from programs that met the conditions described
in paragraph (a)(3) of this section; and
(3) The Secretary did not have data to evaluate the program's
performance as described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(d) If the conditions for waiver in paragraph (a) or (c) of this
section are met but the loan has been repaid by a
[[Page 27616]]
Federal Consolidation Loan or Direct Consolidation Loan that has an
outstanding balance, the Secretary may waive the portion of the
outstanding balance of the consolidation loan attributable to such
loan.
Sec. 30.89 Severability.
If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person,
act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the
application of its provisions to any other person, act, or practice
will not be affected thereby.
PART 682--FEDERAL FAMILY EDUCATION LOAN (FFEL) PROGRAM
0
17. The authority citation for part 682 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1071-1087-4, unless otherwise noted.
Section 682.410 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1078, 1078-1, 1078-
2, 1078-3, 1080a, 1082, 1087, 1091a, and 1099.
0
20. Add Sec. 682.403 to read as follows:
Sec. 682.403 Waiver of FFEL Program loan debt.
(a) General. (1) This section specifies the rules and procedures
under which--
(i) The Secretary determines that a FFEL Program loan qualifies for
a waiver of all or a portion of the outstanding balance and notifies
the lender of any such determination;
(ii) The lender submits a waiver claim to the applicable guaranty
agency;
(iii) The guaranty agency pays the claim, is reimbursed by the
Secretary, and assigns the loan to the Secretary; and
(iv) The Secretary grants the waiver.
(2) For the purposes of this section, references to--
(i) The lender includes the guaranty agency if the guaranty agency
is the holder of the loan at the time the Secretary determines that the
loan qualifies for a waiver, except that the waiver claim filing
requirements applicable to the lender do not apply to the guaranty
agency; and
(ii) The guaranty agency means the guaranty agency that guarantees
the loan.
(b) Determination of qualification for a waiver by the Secretary.
The Secretary may waive the borrower's obligation to repay up to the
entire outstanding balance on an FFEL Program loan if the loan
qualifies for a waiver under one of the following conditions:
(1) First entered repayment on or before July 1, 2000.
(i) The Secretary may waive the outstanding balance of a loan if
the loan first entered repayment on or before July 1, 2000.
(ii) For the purpose of this section, a loan enters repayment on--
(A) For a Federal Stafford Loan, the day after the initial grace
period ends;
(B) For a Federal PLUS Loan, the day the loan is fully disbursed;
or
(C) For a Federal Consolidation Loan, the earliest day as
determined under paragraph (b) (1) (ii)(A) and (B) of this section for
any loan that was repaid by that consolidation loan.
(2) Closed school discharge. The Secretary may waive the borrower's
obligation to repay up to the entire outstanding balance of a loan
where the Secretary determines that a borrower has not applied or not
successfully applied for, but otherwise meets the eligibility
requirements for, a closed school discharge on that loan under Sec.
682.402(d).
(3) Cohort default rate. For loans received for attendance at an
institution that lost its eligibility to participate in any title IV,
HEA program because of its cohort default rate, as defined in 20 U.S.C.
1085(m), the Secretary may waive the outstanding balance of the loan,
provided that the borrower was included in the cohort whose debt was
used to calculate the cohort default rate or rates that were the basis
for the loss of eligibility.
(c) Notification. If the Secretary determines that a loan qualifies
for a waiver under paragraph (b) of this section, the Secretary
provides notice to the lender that the lender must--
(1) Submit a waiver claim to the applicable guaranty agency; and
(2) Suspend collection activity, or maintain a suspension of
collection activity, on the borrower's FFEL Program loan.
(d) Claim procedures. (1) The guaranty agency must establish and
enforce standards and procedures for the timely filing by lenders of
waiver claims.
(2) The lender must submit a claim for the full outstanding balance
of the loan to the guaranty agency, within 75 days of the date the
lender received the notification from the Secretary described in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(3) The lender must provide the guaranty agency with the following
documentation when filing a waiver claim:
(i) An original or a true and exact copy of the promissory note.
(ii) The notification described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(4) If the lender is not in possession of an original or true and
exact copy of the promissory note, the lender may submit alternative
documentation acceptable to the Secretary, such as documentation of a
borrower's affirmation of the debt.
(5) The guaranty agency must review the waiver claim and determine
whether the claim meets the requirements of paragraphs (d)(3) and
(d)(4) of this section.
(6) If the guaranty agency determines the waiver claim meets the
requirements of paragraph (d)(3) and (d)(4) of this section, the
guaranty agency must pay the claim within 30 days of the date the claim
was received by the guaranty agency.
(7) If the lender receives any payments on the loan from or on
behalf of the borrower during the suspension of collection activity or
after receiving a claim payment from the guaranty agency, the lender
must promptly return the payments to the sender.
(8) The Secretary reimburses the guaranty agency for the full
amount of a claim paid to the lender after the agency pays the claim to
the lender.
(9) The guaranty agency must assign the loan to the Secretary
within 75 days of--
(i) The date the guaranty agency pays the claim and receives the
reimbursement payment; or
(ii) The date the guaranty agency receives the notification
described in paragraph (c) of this section if the guaranty agency is
the lender.
(10) After the guaranty agency assigns the loan, the Secretary may
waive the borrower's obligation to repay up to the entire outstanding
balance of the loan.
(11) After the Secretary grants the waiver, the Secretary notifies
the borrower, the lender, and the guaranty agency that the borrower's
obligation to repay the debt or a portion of the debt, has been waived.
(e) Payments received during the suspension of collection activity
or after the Secretary's payment of a waiver claim.
(1) If the guaranty agency receives any payments from or on behalf
of the borrower on a loan during the suspension of collection activity
or after the loan has been assigned to the Secretary in accordance with
paragraph (d) of this section, the guaranty agency must promptly return
these payments to the sender. At the same time that the agency returns
the payments, it must notify the borrower that there is no obligation
to make payments on the loan after the Secretary has granted a waiver
unless--
(i) The borrower received a partial waiver of the outstanding
balance of the loan; or
(ii) The Secretary directs the borrower otherwise.
[[Page 27617]]
(2) If the guaranty agency has returned a payment to the borrower,
or the borrower's representative, with the notice described in
paragraph (e)(1) of this section, and the borrower (or representative)
continues to send payments to the guaranty agency, the agency must
remit all of those payments to the Secretary.
(3) If the Secretary receives any payments from or on behalf of the
borrower on the loan after the Secretary waives the entire outstanding
balance of a loan, the Secretary returns the payments to the sender.
(f) If the conditions for waiver in paragraph (b) of this section
are met but the loan has been repaid by a Federal Consolidation Loan
that has an outstanding balance, the Secretary may waive the portion of
the outstanding balance of the consolidation loan attributable to such
loan once the loan has been assigned to the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-07726 Filed 4-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P