May 17, 2024

U.S. Department of Education Docket ID ED–2023–OPE–0123

400 Maryland Ave., SW, Room 2C172

On behalf of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA) and our 3,000

member institutions, we respectfully submit to the U.S. Department of Education (ED) our comments on

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 (Docket ID ED–2023–OPE–0123).

NASFAA represents nearly 20,000 financial aid professionals who serve 16 million students each year at

colleges and universities in all sectors throughout the country. NASFAA member institutions serve nine

out of every 10 undergraduates in the U.S.

There is no doubt the regulatory proposals put forward by the administration would benefit a significant

number of borrowers.

However, even with these opportunities, we have witnessed millions of borrowers struggling to repay

their debt. ED notes in its preamble the low uptake rates for forgiveness programs that require an

application like total and permanent disability and closed school discharge, as well as servicer errors that

have miscounted payments even for programs where forgiveness should be automatic. Making

improvements in how these plans are administered will ensure more students receive the forgiveness

Congress established in the loan for them.

We commend ED’s efforts in the 2021 rulemaking process to improve access to programs like Public

Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF,) closed school discharge, total and permanent disability discharge, and

false certification discharge, as well as the temporary PSLF waivers and payment count adjustment

2

few pennies shouldn’t be the deciding factor between who receives forgiveness and who does not.

NASFAA also supports policies that are targeted, fair, and data-informed. Debt forgiveness policies

should not make value judgments. Distinctions should not be made based exclusively on how much the

student borrowed, the loan type, the degree or credential the loans were borrowed to pay for, or who

borrowed the loan.

Loans have taken an outsized role in the financing of postsecondary education in the U.S. over the past

several decades. ED notes in the preamble the significant role the Pell Grant’s failure to keep pace with

rising college costs has played in the circumstances we face today, where students are overly reliant on

these programs and we encourage ED to support legislative efforts and to take regulatory action to

continue ensuring that student loans are a reasonable part of a postsecondary financing strategy.

With all of this in mind, we offer the following additional comments on the Administration’s debt

forgiveness proposals.

Comments on Specific Provisions of the Proposed Regulations

§ 30.70(e)(1): We agree with ED’s rationale to add the HEAL program to the list of loan types ED may

use its authority to compromise, suspend, or terminate. None of the distinctions between the HEAL

program and the other loan types for which ED can exercise this authority should categorically exclude

borrowers whose payments under existing IDR plans are too low to keep up with accruing interest. We

appreciate that ED will calculate the principal balance for the underlying loans that were repaid by a

consolidation loan instead of that of the consolidation loan itself. Many borrowers had to consolidate to

take advantage of the PSLF temporary waivers or the payment count adjustment. Those borrowers should

not lose out on this opportunity because they consolidated to qualify for another one.

1

https://www.nasfaa.org/protecting_borrowers_advancing_equity

3

provides compelling evidence to support this decision, considering only one of every three borrowers who

could benefit from IDR is actually enrolled in one of those plans and that seven of ten defaulted

borrowers also would have qualified to enroll in an IDR plan. Clearly, much work must be done to better

communicate the availability of these payment plans to student loan borrowers. In the meantime, though,

borrowers must not be treated unfairly due to their lack of knowledge that such programs exist.

§ 30.83: ED’s proposal to forgive loans based on time since the loan entered repayment is fair and

reasonable. As ED noted in its preamble to the proposed regulations, Congress has already established in

statute that 20-25 years is a reasonable maximum amount of time a borrower should be expected to repay

their loans. Borrowers should not be subjected to a lifetime of debt because they somehow missed an

we agree with ED’s proposal to cancel loans 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. We agree ED should offer an opt-out to borrowers as opposed to automatically enrolling them in

an IDR plan. We encourage ED in its communications to be very clear about the benefits and

disadvantages (such as federal and state tax liability) of enrolling in these plans and ultimately receiving

forgiveness so borrowers make the best possible decision based on their circumstances.

§ 30.85: NASFAA supports ED’s proposal to cancel a borrower’s outstanding balance if they qualify for

a targeted forgiveness program but did not apply for that program. As already stated, borrowers

shouldn’t be penalized for having incomplete information like being unaware of targeted forgiveness

authority to end a substandard program or institution’s participation in the federal student aid programs

helps future students by disincentivizing enrollment due to lack of availability of federal aid. However,

those protections for future students come on the backs of past students, who already attended those

programs while they were engaged in the activities that led to final action by ED. We wish to stress the

need for ED to take swift action in such instances while still acknowledging and appreciating that ED

would only exercise this waiver after all institutional appeals had been considered.

4

fails accountability standards, its former students should be equally protected regardless of whether it

keeps its doors open to face the consequences of that failure.

We ask for clarification on ED’s statement in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that data limitations

related to program information in NSLDS are preventing ED from estimating the number of students

who would qualify for forgiveness under this proposed provision. Does ED anticipate those data

limitations will be resolved by the time the final rule is implemented? If not, how will ED identify

borrowers who qualify for forgiveness?

§ 30.88 As already noted concerning 30.87 and for the same reasons, NASFAA agrees with forgiving

§ 682.403 In the interest of equity and fairness and for the reasons stated elsewhere in our comments,

NASFAA supports the provisions for debt forgiveness for FFEL borrowers for loans in repayment for 25

years or more, when the borrower qualifies for closed school discharge but has not applied, and when the

borrower attended an institution that lost eligibility to offer Title IV aid due to a high Cohort Default

Rate.

Conclusion

Signing a promissory note to borrow loans for postsecondary education is not an agreement to accept a

lifetime of debt. Student loan borrowers should know that, if circumstances out of their control impact

their ability to repay their loans, there is a safety net that will save them from continuing to pay down

However many careers that require a college degree or even graduate-level education may not support the

amount of indebtedness required to obtain the credentials to practice in the field, despite the value of

those fields to society as a whole. Congress developed targeted relief for students in those positions.

5

We look forward to ED’s proposals on the final piece of this student loan debt relief package, borrowers

experiencing financial hardship, which will certainly be more complex, broader, and potentially thornier

than the topics addressed in the current proposal.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding

these comments, please contact us or NASFAA Senior Policy Analyst Jill Desjean at