PUBLIC SUBMISSION | As of: February 09, 2010 Tracking No. 8026cd2a Comments Due: August 13, 2007 |
Docket: ED-2007-OPE-0133
Title IV Loans
Comment On: ED-2007-OPE-0133-0001
Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program
Document: ED-2007-OPE-0133-0020
Comment on FR Doc # E7-10826
Cranford, NJ,
Organization: Union County CollegeProhibited Inducements, 682.200 and 682.401
Along with the rest of the financial aid community, I fully understand and stand by
the Department?s goals of proper administration of all Title IV programs. That
includes the recommendation of lenders to prospective borrowers based on the
merits of the lender and their products; no lenders or guarantors should be
recommended by colleges on the basis of perks provided to the school or its
employees. I disagree with very little of what the Department is issuing in this
NPRM regarding this section. However, by issuing proposed regulations before
legislative action is improper. The Department?s interpretation of existing statute
as a rationale for issuing these proposed regulations ? proper administration of the
programs ? is way too broad, and in light of pending, more specific legislation
likely to become law very soon, writing the regulations before there is a law to
regulate will undoubtedly create confusing or even conflicting regulations in the
near future. Prohibiting improper inducements is within the Department?s
jurisdiction and always has been, but until the Sunshine Act becomes law,
content of lender lists is not.
I am troubled that guarantee agencies (GA) seem to be held to a lower standard of
conduct in these proposed regulations than the rest of the partners in the FFEL
program. I do not agree with the assertion that a GA has inherent legal
responsibilities within Title IV administration that should allow them to provide
meals, travel reimbursements or remuneration for college employees to sit on
advisory boards. The line between a lender and a GA can be very fine, and
allowing this loophole can easily undo much of what the Department is trying to
accomplish by the issuance of such specific inducement prohibitions. There is at
least one instance of a major lender and a GA working together ? to the extreme
financial benefit of the GA ? in which the GA deliberately steered schools to a
single lender, with all schools in that state being subpoenaed as a result. I fear
that if the Department continues to permit these types of activities by giving GA?s
more leniency, none of these inducement regulations will have the desired effect.
Simplification of Deferment Process, 674.38, 682.210 and 685.204
I applaud all attempts to simplify this process, and would suggest that, especially
in times of war, it should be possible to initiate a military deferment by means of a
database match between the Departments of Education and Defense.
Loan Discharge for False Certification as a Result of Identity Theft, 682.208,
682.211, 682.300, 682.302 and 682.411
Identity theft is a hard enough process for the victim to deal with. The Department
should not be creating a separate process for student loans. If all other forms of
fraudulent debt can be released with one set of documents and a single procedure,
student loans should not be the exception. This is simply another example of the
Federal financial aid process being overly complicated where it should be striving
for simplicity.
David Sheridan
Dean of Enrollment Management
Union County College
Cranford, New Jersey
Chair, Federal Issues Committee
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators
The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of my employer or of
NASFAA.