1 / 78

NPRMS, NEG REG and YOU

NPRMS, NEG REG and YOU. New York State Financial Aid Administrators Association. What is an NPRM?. N otice of P roposed R ule M aking A formal notice to the public by a government agency that they intend to create new regulations or modify already existing regulations.

finna
Download Presentation

NPRMS, NEG REG and YOU

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NPRMS, NEG REG and YOU New York State Financial Aid Administrators Association

  2. What is an NPRM? • Notice of Proposed Rule Making • A formal notice to the public by a government agency that they intend to create new regulations or modify already existing regulations.

  3. Why Should You Be Concerned? • Opportunity to change regulations before they are finalized. • Advance knowledge of changes to expect. • Professional Responsibility • Participatory Democracy

  4. In the Old Days...(pre-1993) • The Department of Education (ED) drafted proposed regs to respond to new laws, amended laws, or perceived problems with existing regs. • Published in the Federal Register • 30 to 60 day public response period. • Public hearings to solicit testimony.

  5. In the Old Days...(pre-1993) • The public (colleges, FAAs, and others) responded in writing. • ED staff reviewed the public responses, amended the draft (maybe) and issued a final regulation.

  6. How Does ED Decide What Needs Regulations? • New or amended legislation • Reports by GAO or other agencies • School audits & program reviews • Congressional oversight

  7. The New and Improved Way(since 1993)Negotiated RulemakingNeg Reg

  8. The New and Improved Way(since 1993) • The Department of Education (ED) identifies new laws, amended laws, or perceived problems that require the creation of new regulations or modification of existing regs. • ED conducts a public hearing to “obtain public involvement” in the development of regulations.

  9. The New and Improved Way(since 1993) • ED negotiates with representatives of groups involved in student financial aid. • Draft regulations are developed, based on whether consensus has been achieved during negotiations. • Keep this thought of consensus in mind. We’ll come back to it later.

  10. The New and Improved Way(since 1993) • ED publishes the draft regs as an NPRM. • The public responds to the NPRM. • This is where you get to write a letter. • ED reviews and considers public responses, then develops final regulations.

  11. Advance NPRMs • Announcement that the Secretary will be proposing regulations. • Are issued occasionally • Most recent example Electronic Signatures, February 27, 2001 • If non-HEA, is NegReg required?

  12. ED NegReg • Statutory Authorization • Section 492 of the Higher Ed Act • Chapter 1, Code of Federal Regulations Sections 305.82, 4 & 5 • Presidential Memorandum, Sept 30, 1993

  13. NegReg Participants • ED conducts a public hearing to “obtain public involvement” in the development of regulations. • “Participants in the negotiations process shall be chosen by the Secretary from individuals nominated by groups participating in the regional meetings …, and shall include both representatives of such groups from Washington, D.C, and industry participants.” { HEA 1992, section 492(b)}

  14. NegReg Participants • 1999 Committee on Pell, FWS, Refunds & Student Eligibility • Accred Commission of Career Schools & Colleges of Technology • AACRO • American Assoc of Community Colleges (AACC) • American Assoc of Cosmetology Schools • American Assoc of State Colleges an Universities (AASCU) • American Council on Education (ACE) • American Assoc of Universities (AAU) • Career College Association (CCA) • Coalition of Higher Ed Assistance Organizations (COHEO) • Education Finance Council • Legal Services Counsel (a coalition)

  15. NegReg Participants • NACUBO • Nat Assoc of Equal Opportunity in Higher Education • Nat Assoc of Graduate/Professional Students • Nat Assoc of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU) • Nat Assoc of State Student Grant & Aid Programs (NASGAP)/ Nat Council of Higher Ed Loan Programs (NCHELP) - (a coalition) • Nat Assoc of State Univ, & Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) • NASFAA • National Direct Student Loan Coalition • The College Board • The College Fund/United Negro College Fund • U.S. Department of Education • United States Student Association • US Public Interest Research Group

  16. Organizational Protocols • Mission Statement • Participation • Committee members • Principal spokesperson & alternate • Non-member invitations • Adding members • Subcommittees

  17. Organizational Protocols:Decision Making • Consensus, “...there must be NO dissent by ANY member in order for the committee to be considered to have reached agreement.” • “Members should not block or withhold consensus unless they have serious reservations….” • “Absence will be equivalent to not dissenting.” • “All consensus agreements… will be assumed to be tentative… until members… agree to make them final agreements.”

  18. Organizational Protocols:Agreement • Goal - to develop one or more NPRMs that reflect a final consensus of the committee. • The Department will not alter the consensus based language of its NPRMs UNLESS it reopens the negreg process or provides a written explanation to the committee members in advance of the publication of the NPRM. If there is a change, Committee members may commentpositively or negatively.

  19. Organizational Protocols:Agreement • If the committee reaches consensus, ED will use the consensus language in the NPRMs • Committee Members WILL REFRAIN from commenting negatively on the consensus language, unless it has something new to contribute (not previously considered or new information). • IF NASFAA IS A NEGOTIATIOR, AND CONSENSUS IS ACHIEVED, NASFAA CANNOT COMMENT.

  20. No Consensus? • What if consensus is not achieved? • ED is permitted to publish proposed regulations using language that they believe adequately addresses the issue. • Negotiators are permitted to comment positively or negatively.

  21. Organizational Protocols: • Committee Meetings • Clear and reliable record • distribution of materials at least 7 days in advance • caucus for consultation • agendas • all meetings, except caucuses, are public • Safeguards for Members • Any member may withdraw at any time • All members shall act in good faith • Contact with the press is generally limited to discussion of overall objectives and progress • Meeting Facilitation • Facilitators serve at the discretion of committee

  22. Carved out sections: • The department can choose to “carve out” sections of the NPRMs, either taking sections out of discussion completely or moving them into a separate discussion.

  23. SOURCES OF INFORMATION • NASFAA Daily News • Committee members • NACUBO/AACRO • Presidential Associations • Student loan organizations • Chronicle of Higher Education • US Department of Education

  24. How Can You Have Input? • Attend a Regional ED Meeting • Volunteer to be a negotiator • Provide input to your associations • Respond to NPRMs when published

  25. READING & RESPONDING TO AN NPRM Or, How Not to Fall Asleep

  26. THE INTRODUCTION • Summary • Dates • Addresses • Further Information

  27. Summary SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the Institutional Eligibility, the Student Assistance General Provisions, the Federal Work-Study, the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan, the Federal Family Education Loan, and the Federal Pell Grant regulations. These proposed regulations implement changes negotiated with the financial aid, higher education, and other related community members in the negotiated rulemaking process mandated by Congress under section 492 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, (HEA). Federal Register: August 10, 2000 [NASFAA Federal Monitor, Volume 65, Number 155, Proposed Rules, Page 49133-49154]

  28. Summary • These changes would streamline the application, reapplication and certification processes for institutions that wish to participate in the title IV, HEA programs; • reduce burden, under specific circumstances, for the reporting of additional locations; • clarify the reporting responsibilities for institutions that experience a change in ownership that results in a change of control; • expand the possibilities for institutions to create written agreements with certain other entities to have part or all of their eligible programs provided by those entities;

  29. Summary • revise the process for determining a transfer student's financial aid history; • recognize electronic certification and record retention options for FWS program administration; • add flexibility to the training requirements for institutional certification; • change loan proceeds disbursement rules for programs using non-standard terms; • clarify notification requirements when title IV loan proceeds are credited to a student's institutional account; • and add flexibility to lender disbursement requirements and eligibility determinations for students receiving loan proceeds.

  30. Dates • DATES: We must receive your comments on or before September 25, 2000.

  31. Addresses • ADDRESSES: Address all comments about these proposed regulations to: Mark Washington, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 23272, Washington, DC 20026-3272. • If you prefer to send your comments through the Internet please use the following address: GPNPRM@ed.gov. You must use the term, ``Team 2--General Provisions'' in the subject line of your electronic mail message.

  32. Addresses • If you want to comment on the information collection requirements, you must send your comments to the Office of Management and Budget at the address listed in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this preamble. You may also send a copy of these comments to the Department representative named in this section.

  33. Further Information • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Washington, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 3045, ROB-3, Washington, DC 20202-5447. Telephone: (202)-260-9321.

  34. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION • The most important part • Recap of NegReg process and participants • Explanation of each major proposal, and the justification for it.

  35. Exemptions From Applying for Additional Locations Exemption for public institutions: Current Regulations: Under Sec. 600.20(c)(3) an institution must apply to add a location not currently a part of its eligibility designation. Those rules do not distinguish among the types of institutions that must apply.

  36. Proposed Regulations Proposed Regulations: We have proposed in Sec. 600.20(d)(1) that public institutions do not have to apply to the Secretary for approval of an additional location under Sec. 600.20(c)(1), if the additional location is properly licensed and accredited, and is located within the same State as the main campus of the currently designated eligible institution.

  37. Reasons As noted earlier, the committee did not reach consensus on this issue. • During the negotiated rulemaking sessions, we noted that we are not aware of any problems that placed federal funds at risk when a public institution has added additional locations. • The public entities that govern these institutions generally apply responsible oversight and systems of control over these institutions, especially with regard to the establishment of additional locations.

  38. Reasons • The additional level of planning, approval, and review generally required by public entities helps to limit rapid growth that could adversely impact educational quality or cause fiscal instability in the administration of title IV funds. • Moreover, we believe that the extent of fiscal resources generally made available to public institutions by the public entities that govern them are likely to be substantial enough to safeguard the taxpayers from any potential losses in title IV, HEA program funds.

  39. Reasons • Some members of the committee saw this proposed exemption as a benefit unfairly and unduly afforded to a select segment of eligible institutions. One committee member considered the sector-based distinction to be discriminatory, and questioned the legality of the proposed regulations on this basis. • A few committee members suggested that any institution, regardless of its structure or control, that meets the licensing and accreditation standards, and whose additional location was in the same State as the main campus, should receive the same exemption as that being proposed for public institutions.

  40. Reasons • We maintained that it was neither novel nor extraordinary for a federal agency to rely upon the oversight and financial backing provided to public institutions. We believe that this governmental oversight over public institutions limits risks to federal funds. • While it is true that some non-public institutions administer their programs in a way that does not pose any fiscal risk to the federal taxpayers, that is not the case for all such institutions. On the other hand, all public institutions have considerable financial support available to help them meet their title IV, HEA program obligations.

  41. Proposed Regulations The proposed Sec. 600.20(d)(2) would exempt non-public institutions from applying for approval of licensed and accredited temporary locations if the following specific conditions are met: (1) The institution intends to use the location for not more than 12 months; (2) the institution has not added more than six locations offering at least fifty percent of an educational program since it was last certified;

  42. Proposed Regulations (3) the institution does not have any outstanding title IV, HEA program liabilities; (4) the institution did not acquire the assets of another institution that formerly provided educational programs at that location (and that participated in title IV, HEA programs at that location) within the preceding year; ….

  43. Proposed Regulations We especially request comment on whether an institution that has provided notification to us that it intends to remain at an additional location for more than one year should immediately stop making title IV disbursements until it receives our approval of that location, as would be the case with any other notification of a permanent additional location.

  44. Costs and Benefits Under Executive Order 12866, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with the proposed regulations are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering these programs effectively and efficiently.

  45. Costs and Benefits ...these proposed regulations, ...would implement a variety of streamlining and clarifying provisions to provide institutions additional flexibility in the administration of the title IV, HEA programs. ...we have determined that the benefits would justify the costs. We have also determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

  46. Clarity of Regulations Executive Order 12866 and the President's Memorandum of June 1, 1998 on ``Plain Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite comments on how to make these proposed regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:

  47. Clarity of Regulations Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly stated? Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity? Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?

  48. Clarity of Regulations Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading; for example, Sec. 675.19 Fiscal procedures and records.) Could the description of the proposed regulations in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?

  49. Clarity of Regulations What else could we do to make the proposed regulations easier to understand? Send any comments that concern how the Department could make these proposed regulations easier to understand to the person listed in the ADDRESSES section of the preamble.

  50. Regulatory Flexibility The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Entities affected by these regulations are institutions of higher education that participate in the title IV, HEA programs.

More Related