DOE opens negotiated-rulemaking hearing on Title IV rules, solicits public input on PSLF, IDR and borrower protections

The U.S. Department of Education on a virtual public hearing solicited public comment on potential regulatory changes to Title IV programs — putting particular focus on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program and income-driven repayment plans.

“...the department is soliciting feedback, specifically feedback on ways to streamline federal financial aid assistance that will maintain or improve program integrity and institutional quality,” said James Bergeron, Deputy Undersecretary of Education and Acting Undersecretary, during opening remarks.

Why it matters: Rules governing PSLF and income-driven repayment (IDR) determine who qualifies for loan forgiveness, how monthly payments are calculated and how months in “administrative” forbearance or servicer error are treated. Changes could affect millions of borrowers, the staffing of public and nonprofit employers, and colleges’ obligations under Title IV.

Public comments and recurring themes

Borrowers and borrower advocates used the hearing to describe personal hardship, processing delays, and what they said are inconsistent servicer practices. Adaku Anika Crawford, who identified herself as a former public servant and beneficiary of public‑interest programs, said these programs “are vitally important” and urged a broad definition of nonprofit employers for PSLF. Betsy Mayotte, president of the Institute of Student Loan Advisors, asked the department to count administrative forbearance months toward forgiveness or to institute automatic “buyback” offers so borrowers do not have to request credit after servicer errors: “for any period where a borrower is put in an administrative forbearance that these months count towards loan forgiveness,” she said.

Many commenters — including nurses, teachers, prosecutors, medical residents and public defenders — described relying on PSLF and IDR to enter and remain in lower‑paying public‑service jobs. Heather Jarvis, who represented a coalition of more than 100 nonprofit public‑service organizations, told the department that narrowing PSLF eligibility would worsen workforce shortages in rural hospitals and schools.

Advocates for institutions and some higher‑education organizations urged clarity and predictability. Donna Grunette, executive director of the Coalition of Higher Education Assistance Organizations, said institutions need regulatory relief and raised operational concerns tied to resuming collections on federal direct loans; Tim Powers of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities urged clear communication and simplification for borrowers and institutions.

Operational problems and relief requests

Speakers pressed the department on implementation issues: long servicer backlogs, slow processing of consolidations and IDR applications, and the efficiency of the buyback process created during the temporary PSLF waiver. Multiple commenters asked that months lost to litigation‑related or administrative forbearances be credited toward PSLF; several asked that the department expand or improve the buyback process so borrowers do not remain stuck in “limbo.” Emmett Murphy of PSLF Defense asked the department to ensure that any new regulatory definition of qualifying employer does not retroactively strip credit from borrowers whose employers previously qualified.

Policy details raised

- Definition of qualifying employer: speakers urged that changes not disadvantage workers whose employers are 501(c)(3)s or other longstanding public‑service institutions and cautioned against narrowing eligibility on ideological grounds. - Treatment of spousal income: commenters described reliance on married‑filing‑separately tax status to keep monthly payments manageable and urged that any change preserve reasonable reliance protections for current borrowers. - Counting months in administrative forbearance: borrower advocates asked that months in servicer‑initiated or litigation‑related forbearances count toward forgiveness or be given automatic credit. - Interest, negative amortization and loan rehabilitation: several commenters urged steps to prevent balances from growing while borrowers make income‑based payments and to align rehabilitation payment requirements with available repayment options.

Next steps and procedural notes

James Bergeron and other department officials said the department will publish a Federal Register notice with issues to be considered, seek nominations for negotiated‑rulemaking committees and provide issue papers and draft regulatory language during committee negotiations. The department extended the written‑comment deadline through May 8 and encouraged stakeholders to submit detailed written comments.

What the hearing did not do

This was a listening session; no formal rule changes or votes were taken. Participants offered proposals and asked for specific implementation fixes, but the department has not adopted any regulatory text at this stage.

Looking ahead

Stakeholders urged the department to prioritize prompt servicer remediation, automatic or simplified crediting for affected months, and grandfathering or reasonable‑reliance protections for current borrowers if definitions are changed. The department’s next procedural steps are to collect written comments, form negotiating committees, circulate draft regulatory language and conduct negotiated‑rulemaking sessions. Those steps — and potential legal challenges — will determine whether and how the requested changes reach final regulations affecting borrowers, employers and institutions.