Midwest Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators

1. Midwest Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Federal Policymaking: Start Your Engines Presented by: Nancy Masten Great Lakes Higher Education Guaranty Corporation Charles “Buddy” Mayfield University of Illinois

2. Federal Policymaking:Start Your Engines • What is Negotiated Rulemaking? • What is the process? • Who participates? • Examples of successful negotiation • From bill to regulation

3. Statutory Authority • Part of 1998 HEA reauthorization • HEA §492 outlines parameters • Secretary shall involve public in developing proposed regulations • All regulations promulgated by the Secretary are subject to negotiated rulemaking • Secretary has authority to conclude such action is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to public interest

4. Statutory Authority • HEA §492 outlines parameters, cont’d • Secretary holds regional meetings to solicit input from the community on issues to be addressed during negotiations • Negotiators nominated by groups representing students, legal aid organizations, post-secondary schools, guarantors, lenders, secondary markets, servicers, collection agencies • Secretary selects negotiators from list of nominees

5. Negotiated Rulemaking Process • Department of Education convenes meetings • Teams assembled by topic, for example: • Teacher preparation (2012) • Student Loans Team (2012) • Gainful Employment (2013) • Facilitated by independent 3rd party • Meeting protocols established by federal and non-federal negotiators • Meetings open to public

6. Negotiated Rulemaking Process • Team establishes protocols for • Adding new members • Establishing subcommittees • Caucusing • Contact with the press • Withdrawing from the process • Adding Issues to be considered

7. Negotiated Rulemaking Process • Schedule typicallyincludes three meetings • Meeting 1 • Protocols • Identification of Issues to be negotiated • Issue Review • Meeting 2 • Finalize Issues to be negotiated • Draft Regulations • Meeting 3 • Final Regulations • More or fewer meetings may be scheduled

8. Negotiated Rulemaking Process • Goal – achieve intended public policy while limiting unintended negative consequences and costs • Approach – convene balanced group of stakeholders with expertise and experience to deliberate on issues, interests, and concerns relative to regulation • Outcome – consensus regulatory language for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

9. Negotiated Rulemaking Process • Principles of consensus • General agreement or accord • Consent versus support • Enlightened self interest • Responsibilities of negotiators • Voice opinions and concerns • Assist with developing solutions to satisfy objectives • Consent to livable proposals • Block consensus for serious objections • Maintain ongoing contact with constituents

10. Negotiated Rulemaking Process • Negotiation key to productive meetings • Department provides draft language • Team reviews and suggests revisions • Department revises language to reflect agreement in concept or provides options • Team reviews with goal of achieving consensus • Outside activities/meetings occur throughout • Conference calls with federal and non-federal negotiators • Two-way feedback between negotiators and constituency

11. Negotiators • Teams consist of primary and alternate negotiators • Primary will participate for purposes of determining consensus (voting) • Alternate will participate in absence of primary

12. Four-Year Public Institutions Kris Wright; Elaine Papas-Varas Private Nonprofit Institutions Yvonne Gutierrez-Sandoval; Jeffrey A. Gall Private For-Profit Institutions Tom Sakos; Anthony Fragomeni Guaranty Agencies Betsy Mayotte; Scott Giles Lenders/Loan Servicers Robert Sandlin; Vicki Shipley Accrediting Agencies Albert Gray; Sharon Turner Department of Education Pam Moran; Gail McLarnon 2012 Student Loan Team • Students • Getachew Kassa; Abou Amara, Jr. • Legal Assistance to Students • Deanne Loonin; Radhika Singh Miller • Consumer Advocacy Organizations • Jennifer Mishory; Maureen Thompson • Financial Aid Administrators • Margaret Rodriguez; Elizabeth Hicks • Business Officers and Bursars • David Glezerman; Maria Livolsi • Institutional Third-Party Servicers • Robert Perrin • State Attorneys General • Todd Leatherman; Michele Casey • Two-Year Public Institutions • Cristi Millard; Chris Christensen

13. Minority Serving Institutions Helga Greenfield; Ronnie Higgs Two-Year Public Institutions Richard Heath; Glen Gilbert Four-Year Public Institutions BarmakNassirian; Barbara Hoblitzell Private Nonprofit Institutions Jenny Rickard; Thomas Dalton Private For-Profit Institutions Brain Jones; Raymond Testa Accrediting Agencies Belle Wheelan; Neil Harvison Department of Education John Kolotos 2013 Gainful Employment • Students • Rory O’Sullivan; Kalwis Lo • Legal Assistance to Students • Eileen Connor; Whitney Barkley • Consumer Advocacy Organizations • Margaret Reiter; Tom Tarantino • Financial Aid Administrators • Kevin Jensen; Rhonda Mohr • State Higher Education Executive Officers • Jack Warner; Sandra Kinney • State Attorneys General/State Officials • Della Justice; Libby DeBlasio • Business and Industry • Ted Daywalt; Thomas Kriger

14. Master Calendar Provisions • Outlined in HEA §482(c) • Regulatory changes published by November 1 take effect July 1 of the following year (beginning of next award year) • If deadline not met, changes not effective until second award year following November 1 • Early implementation may be granted by Secretary • Such changes become effective as determined by the Secretary (typically on date of publication of Final Rule) • Option of impacted party to implement early

15. From “Bill” to “Regulation” • Negotiated rulemaking sessions on Student Loan Issues • Meetings held between Jan – March 2012 • NPRM #1 published – July 17, 2012 • 30-day comment period – due August 17, 2012 • Final Rule published – November 1, 2012 • NPRM #2 published – July 29, 2013 • 30-day comment period – due August 28, 2013 • Final Rule expected by November 1, 2013

16. 2012 Student Loan Team Topics • Package #1: • Total and permanent disability • Income-driven repayment plans (IBR, Pay As You Earn, ICR) • Package #2: • Repayment disclosures • Minimum loan period • Forbearance • Closed school discharge • Enrollment status reporting • Loan rehabilitation • Administrative wage garnishment • Perkins Loans Issues

17. Examples of Successful Negotiation • NegReg 2012 - Package #1 • Total and permanent disability • Social Security Administration documentation can establish eligibility • ED as single point of contact for processing • Income-driven repayment plans • New Pay As You Earn repayment plan • Improved notifications to borrowers

18. Examples of Successful Negotiation • NegReg 2012 – Package #2 (NPRM) • Closed School Discharge • Would extend timeframe in which borrower can be withdrawn from school prior to the school’s closure date to qualify for discharge (from 90 to 120 days) • Would include examples of what ED considers exceptional circumstances • Loan rehabilitation • Would standardize what guarantor and ED can consider in establishing rehabilitation payment amount • Would incorporate IBR-based formula if borrower objects to rehab agreement provided • Administrative wage garnishment • Would fold in AWG rules into student loan regulations • Perkins cancellation provisions • Would allow borrowers to switch from one cancellation category to another and receive cancellation at same annual rate

19. Federal Policymaking:Start Your Engines Questions?Contact Info: Charles “Buddy” Mayfield charlesr@illinois.edu Nancy Mastennmasten@glhec.org