Tag: Request

  • Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment Universal Forms

    Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment Universal Forms

    A Notice by the Education Department on 05/19/2025

    Department of Education[Docket No.: ED-2025-SCC-0002]

    AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 18, 2025.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain to access the site. Find this information collection request (ICR) by selecting “Department of Education” under “Currently Under Review,” then check the “Only Show ICR for Public Comment” checkbox. Reginfo.gov provides two links to view documents related to this information collection request. Information collection forms and instructions may be found by clicking on the “View Information Collection (IC) List” link. Supporting statements and other supporting documentation may be found by clicking on the “View Supporting Statement and Other Documents” link.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Carolyn Rose, 202-453-5967.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment Universal Forms.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0163.

    Type of Review: A revision of a currently approved ICR.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals and Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 83,750.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 217,750.

    Abstract: On April 4, 2024 the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit granted a preliminary injunction against 34 CFR 685.400 et seq. (“2023 Regulation”) enjoining the rule and postponing the effective date of the regular pending final judgment in the case. The current Borrower Defense to Repayment application and related Request for Reconsideration are drafted to conform to the enjoined provisions of the 2023 Regulation. This request is to revise the currently approved information collection 1845-0163 to comply with the regulatory requirements of the borrower defense regulations that are still in effect, 34 CFR 685.206(e) (“2020 Regulation”), 34 CFR 685.222 (“2016 Regulation”), and 34 CFR 685.206(c) (“1995 Regulation”) (together, the “current regulations”). These regulatory requirements are distinct from the 2023 Regulation’s provisions. The revision is part of contingency planning in case the 2023 Regulation is permanently struck down. The Department of Education (“the Department”) is attaching an updated Borrower Defense Application and application for Request for Reconsideration. The forms will be available in paper and electronic forms on studentaid.gov and will provide borrowers with an easily accessible and clear method to provide the information necessary for the Department to review and process claim applications. Also, under the current regulations, the Department will no longer require a group application nor group reconsideration application.

    Dated: May 13, 2025.

    Brian Fu,

    Program and Management Analyst, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.

    [FR Doc. 2025-08857 Filed 5-16-25; 8:45 am]

    BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    Published Document: 2025-08857 (90 FR 21296)

    Source link

  • Committee Withdraws Request for Northwestern Docs

    Committee Withdraws Request for Northwestern Docs

    The House Education and the Workforce Committee is no longer seeking records related to legal clinics at Northwestern University after a group of law professors sued over the request.

    The committee took issue with the university’s Community Justice and Civil Rights Clinic representing pro-Palestinian activists and sought information about the budget and funding sources for the Bluhm Legal Clinic and its more than 20 clinics and 12 centers. Two professors—one of them is Sheila Bedi, the director of the offending clinic—argued that the congressional probe violated their rights and the rights of their clients.

    “The Committee’s demands exceed its authority and have no valid legislative purpose; they are an attempt to investigate, intimidate, and punish institutions and individuals that the Committee has deemed ‘left-wing;’ and they violate the federal Constitution,” the complaint reads. “Immediate relief is necessary to prevent irreparable harm.”

    The committee withdrew the request during an emergency hearing in federal court in Chicago in response to the lawsuit, according to a news release Thursday from the plaintiffs.

    “I filed this suit to defend my clients’ rights to representation, my students’ rights to learn, and my right to teach,” Bedi said in the release. “But today’s decision won’t stop the federal government’s attacks on universities and the legal profession. Educators and institutions must stand united to protect our students, our communities, and each other.”

    Rep. Tim Walberg, a Michigan Republican and chair of the committee, said in a statement that the decision to withdraw the request doesn’t mean “our foot [is] off the gas.”

    “The failures of schools across the country to follow their own rules and federal law to ensure a safe environment for Jewish students and faculty is unacceptable,” Walberg said. “Discussions with Northwestern about our concerns will continue. We seek answers that are critical to informing legislation that will address this national problem, and all tools are on the table, including compulsory measures.”

    Source link

  • Supreme Court Rejects Biden Administration’s Request for Relief in Title IX Legal Challenges – CUPA-HR

    Supreme Court Rejects Biden Administration’s Request for Relief in Title IX Legal Challenges – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | August 19, 2024

    On August 16, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Biden administration’s request to partially overturn preliminary injunctions from lower courts that block the Department of Education from enforcing the administration’s April 2024 Title IX final rule. The decision leaves the preliminary injunctions from the lower district courts in place, preventing the new Title IX rule from taking effect in 26 states and hundreds of schools in other states.

    Background

    Shortly after the Biden administration’s Title IX final rule was published, over two dozen states and advocacy groups filed lawsuits challenging the rule. Over the course of the summer, decisions from lower district courts across the country placed preliminary injunctions on the final rule, leading to the blocking of the final rule in 26 states, as well as at hundreds of schools where members of the Young America’s Foundation, Female Athletes United and Moms for Liberty are in attendance.*

    After several preliminary injunctions were issued, the Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court with an emergency request asking the court to limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions placed by the lower courts. Specifically, the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions to only block provisions of the Title IX final rule related to gender identity, arguing that the lower courts’ decisions to grant the preliminary injunctions were based on concerns with the expanded protections for transgender students. The Biden administration had hoped that by limiting the scope of the preliminary injunctions, other provisions like the new grievance procedures and training requirements would be able to take effect on August 1.

    Supreme Court’s Decision

    In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the Biden administration’s plea to limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions, leaving in place the lower courts’ rulings. The majority opinion stated that the Biden administration did not provide a strong enough argument to sway the Supreme Court to overturn the lower courts’ decisions, and they argued that the gender identity provisions the Biden administration had hoped to limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions to were “intertwined with and affect other provisions of the rule.”

    Looking Ahead

    With the Supreme Court’s decision, the preliminary injunctions from the lower courts are still in place. Further decisions from the district courts on the legality of the final rule are still pending. The Title IX rule could return to the Supreme Court in the future, however, depending on how lower courts rule on the legality of the final rule and whether those decisions are appealed.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates on the legal challenges against the Biden administration’s Title IX rule.

    *The 26 states where the rule is blocked from being enforced by the Department of Education are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The final rule is also blocked from taking effect at hundreds of colleges and universities across the country, including in states that did not challenge the Title IX final rule. A list of those schools can be found here.



    Source link

  • CUPA-HR Files Comment Extension Request to USDA Regarding New Blacklisting Regulation for Federal Contractors – CUPA-HR

    CUPA-HR Files Comment Extension Request to USDA Regarding New Blacklisting Regulation for Federal Contractors – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 21, 2022

    On February 17, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) outlining plans to impose new HR-related conditions on USDA contracts. If finalized, the rule would require federal contractors on projects procured by the USDA to certify their compliance with dozens of federal and state labor laws and executive orders. The proposal mirrors similar “blacklisting” regulations pursued by the USDA during the Obama administration.

    The USDA provided only 32 days for stakeholders to submit comments on the proposal. CUPA-HR, along with several other higher education associations, filed an extension request with the department asking for an additional 90 days to “evaluate the NPRM’s impact on [members’] research missions and collect the information needed in order to provide thoughtful and accurate input to the USDA.” CUPA-HR plans to file comments on the proposal as well.

    The new proposed rulemaking amends the Agriculture Acquisition Regulation (AGAR) to require federal contractors on USDA supply and service projects that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold to certify that they and their subcontractors and suppliers are “in compliance with” 15 federal labor laws, their state equivalents and executive orders. This includes, but is not limited to:

    • Fair Labor Standards Act;
    • Occupational Safety and Health Act;
    • National Labor Relations Act;
    • Service Contract Act;
    • Davis-Bacon Act;
    • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act;
    • Americans with Disabilities Act;
    • Age Discrimination in Employment Act; and
    • Family and Medical Leave Act.

    Additionally, federal contractors submitting offers for a project would be required to disclose to the USDA previous violations and certify they and their subcontractors “are in compliance with” any required corrective actions for those violations. They would also be required to alert USDA to any future adjudications of non-compliance.

    In 2011, the USDA tried to implement a similar policy via a Direct Final Rule and NPRM, but was forced to withdraw both due to stakeholder pushback. CUPA-HR filed comments with the Society for Human Resource Management calling the rules arbitrary and capricious. Our comments also criticized the rules for not adequately clarifying how contractors were expected to comply with the changes and for imposing severe penalties. Additionally, CUPA-HR joined comments filed by the American Council on Education and several other higher education associations that argued the USDA’s rules “impose[d] an unmanageable compliance burden and uncertain compliance risk for colleges and universities that conduct agricultural research under contracts with the [USDA].”

    Additionally, the Obama administration issued an executive order in July 2014 implementing a similar government-wide policy. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council and the Department of Labor issued regulations and guidance, respectively, implementing the order, but they were blocked by a federal judge in October 2016 for violating the First Amendment and due process rights. Congress also passed a Congressional Review Act challenge to the executive order in 2017, permanently withdrawing the executive order and barring the FAR Council from issuing any substantially similar regulations.

    Unlike past proposals, this time the USDA has stated that the certifications will be subject to the False Claims Act (FCA), which provides for substantially increased liability. The FCA provides for treble damages and penalties and allows for private citizens to file suits on behalf of the government (called “qui tam” suits). Qui tam litigants receive a portion of the government’s recovery. According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), the awards to qui tam litigants in FCA suits topped $238 million in 2021. The same DOJ statistics show qui tam suits were the majority of FCA claims, with the government filing 203 new suits under FCA in 2021 compared to 598 qui tam suits in the same year.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor this issue closely.



    Source link

  • DHS Issues Request for Public Comment on Form I-9 Employment Verification – CUPA-HR

    DHS Issues Request for Public Comment on Form I-9 Employment Verification – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 27, 2021

    On October 26, 2021, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a Request for Public Input (RPI) “seeking comments from employers, employer organizations, employee groups, and other members of the public on document examination practices for Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.” 

    The RPI is the agency’s next step in determining whether the remote document examination flexibilities that have been in place since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic should be continued on a permanent basis. Comments are due on or before December 27, 2021.

    Background

    On March 20, 2020, DHS announced employer flexibility guidance to defer the physical presence requirements associated with Form I-9 for 60 days. The guidance allows for remote inspection of Form I-9 documents in situations where employees work exclusively in a remote setting due to COVID-19-related precautions. For employees who physically report to work at a company location on any regular, consistent or predictable basis, employers are required to use standard I-9 procedures.

    The guidance has been extended continuously throughout the pandemic. Issued on August 31, the latest extension to the flexibility guidance was granted through December 31, 2021, following advocacy efforts from CUPA-HR and other stakeholders who expressed a dire need for DHS to maintain the flexibility in light of surging cases of the delta variant.

    Request for Public Input

    The RPI includes a list of questions grouped into two categories: “Experiences with Pandemic-Related Document Examination Flexibilities” and “Considerations for Future Remote Document Examination Procedures.” As DHS considers winding down the flexibility guidance, the RPI will provide the department with important feedback from employers who have conducted remote inspection and “inform and improve DHS policies and processes” regarding “alternative options to physical document examination that offer an equivalent or higher level of security for identity and employment eligibility verification purposes” moving forward.

    The flexibility guidance has been instrumental to institutions of higher education during the pandemic. As such, CUPA-HR intends to engage our members and submit robust comments in response to the RPI. ​Look for more details and your chance to contribute your feedback in the coming weeks.



    Source link