Blog Home

Group of young women in casual wear discussing architectural designs in the creative office.
Group of young women in casual wear discussing architectural designs in the creative office.
Policy and Advocacy Legislation Public Service Loan Forgiveness Financial Aid Legal Education Letter to Legislator
Policy and Advocacy Legislation Public Service Loan Forgiveness Financial Aid Legal Education Letter to Legislator

AccessLex Institute Submits Comments to Education Department on Implementing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

Tamy Abernathy
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Postsecondary Education
400 Maryland Avenue SW, 5th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20202
 

Re: Intent To Receive Public Feedback for the Development of Final Regulations Regarding the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

Docket Number: ED-2025-OPE-0151

Dear Ms. Abernathy:

I am writing on behalf of AccessLex Institute® in response to the January 30, 2026 Federal Register notice soliciting comments on implementation of the statutory changes included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). The following comments provide AccessLex Institute’s recommendations for ensuring that implementation of OBBBA is effective and that Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) qualifying payments are calculated accurately. We also outline topics that the Education Department (ED) should consider for future rulemaking.

AccessLex Institute, in partnership with its nearly 200 nonprofit and state-affiliated ABA-approved member law schools, has been committed to improving access to legal education and to maximizing the affordability and value of a law degree since 1983. We advocate for policies that make legal education work better for students and society alike; conduct research on the most critical issues facing legal education today; seek to expand access to legal education for underrepresented students through research, grantmaking, data analysis, and the dissemination of information and resources; and aim to increase first-time bar exam passage nationwide.

Accurate PSLF Qualifying Payment Calculation

PSLF has been a vital recruitment tool encouraging the best and the brightest to serve millions of Americans through public service careers that benefit communities across this country, especially those in high-need and rural areas. The program allows eligible Direct Loan borrowers employed by a government entity or qualifying nonprofit organization to have their loans forgiven after making 120 qualifying monthly payments. Because forgiveness hinges on a borrower’s adherence to these specific program requirements, ED must ensure that the rules are clear, predictable, and fully aligned with congressional intent, particularly as it relates to qualifying payments.

To ensure that borrowers working toward PSLF receive full and accurate credit, the final rule should explicitly reaffirm that the provision allowing borrowers to satisfy their monthly obligation through multiple installments remains unchanged. Specifically, the final rule should make clear that the definition of “on-time payment” under § 685.209(o)(3), as incorporated into PSLF through § 685.219(b) and (c), does not alter or limit §685.219(c)(2)(ii)’s provision allowing multiple installments within a billing cycle to constitute a qualifying PSLF payment when the full scheduled monthly amount is satisfied.

Past experiences have demonstrated that administrative issues can cause compliant borrowers to lose credit, and such outcomes run counter to the program’s purpose as a long-term incentive to serve the public. By clearly reinforcing this position in the final rule, ED will help to strengthen PSLF and support professionals who rely on it.

Support for Borrowers and Servicers

AccessLex Institute has long supported efforts to streamline the number of repayment plans available to federal student loan borrowers. However, the transition period following the enactment of OBBBA is likely to introduce new complexities for borrowers, particularly as existing Income-Contingent Repayment plans are phased out and replaced by new options. To ensure a seamless transition, ED must prioritize clear and timely communication to borrowers and provide robust support throughout the transition period and beyond.

In addition, ED must support loan servicers who play a critical role in this effort, as they are often the first point of contact for borrowers seeking guidance on repayment options. Servicers must be adequately funded to ensure operational readiness as they implement these new policy changes. In order to meet this challenge, servicers must be equipped to deliver comprehensive customer service to borrowers, including individualized counseling and assistance navigating plan changes. Effective loan servicing is key to ensuring that there is consistency in the delivery of services to borrowers. ED should work with their colleagues at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to request sufficient federal funding from Congress to ensure that loan servicers are equipped to meet the needs of student loan borrowers, thus increasing the likelihood of successful repayment.

Finally, the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) must be fully funded and appropriately staffed to oversee this transition effectively. Improved coordination, clarity, and communication between FSA and loan servicers will be essential to minimize borrower confusion and prevent disruptions in repayment. Again, ED should coordinate with OMB to request funding from Congress that is adequate to manage the transition, communication efforts, technological needs, and loan servicer contracts and relationships.

Data Collection

As the federal government implements the sweeping changes introduced by OBBBA, it is essential that ED prioritize robust data collection efforts to assess how the changes in the law impact students. For example, comprehensive data will be critical to understanding how the new loan limits for graduate and professional students affect access to advanced education.

The need for data will also extend beyond federal student loan programs. With many students now expected to rely on private loans to finance their degrees, ED must also consider how it will track, collect, and disseminate information about private borrowing. For example, will private loan data be incorporated into the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study?

We are also concerned that recent reductions in workforce at ED may strain its capacity to collect and analyze this new data. While state agencies and private organizations may attempt to fill the gap, they lack the scale, infrastructure, and standardization necessary to do so efficiently and comprehensively. Only the federal government has the capacity and experience to collect, synthesize, and disseminate this amount of data at the level required to inform national policy.

Moreover, collecting this data at the national level results in standardized data, allowing for better analysis and understanding of what’s happening across both the country and in specific states. If left to states or private entities alone, we risk fragmented and incompatible data that fails to account for student mobility across state lines or the growth of virtual learning environments, leaving meaningful gaps in what we know about how students pay for graduate and professional education. Without robust, standardized data, students, schools, and policymakers will be left to make decisions in the dark.

Considerations for Future Rulemaking Regarding LL.M. Classification and Lifetime Loan Limits

Although both the classification of Master of Laws (LL.M.) degrees and the treatment of repaid loans under the federal lifetime loan limit fall outside the scope of this proposed rule due to negotiators reaching consensus, we believe it is important to note these issues for future consideration given their significance to graduate and professional borrowers.

First, the current definition of a “professional student” does not explicitly include LL.M. students, despite the fact that LL.M. programs require a J.D. — which is defined as a professional degree under 34 CFR 668.2 — and provide legal training and specialization in areas such as tax and health law. Without recognition as professional degrees for loan limit purposes, LL.M. candidates may be forced to rely on high‑interest private loans or forgo opportunities for further training that strengthens the legal profession. Classifying LL.M. students as professional students in future rulemaking would ensure equitable access to advanced legal education.

Second, the federal lifetime loan limit aggregates all prior federal borrowing, including amounts that borrowers have already fully repaid, in full or in part, for prior graduate or professional study. This approach, which continues to be taken in the proposed rule, unnecessarily penalizes individuals who have demonstrated financial responsibility and a commitment to lifelong learning, eliminating the value that will accrue to the country more broadly from a more educated populace. This framework acts to discourage ambition, successful repayment, and career reinvention — traits that should be celebrated and supported. Future rulemaking should consider excluding repaid loans from the lifetime borrowing calculation to allow responsible borrowers access to advanced education for those seeking to contribute meaningfully across multiple disciplines.

Thank you for considering our comments on the implementation of OBBBA. If you have any
questions or would like additional information, you can reach me at [email protected]. You can also contact Nancy Conneely, Vice President of Policy, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Christopher P. Chapman
President and Chief Executive Officer
AccessLex Institute®
 

Back to Results