Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Rules and Regulations Ohio River between MM 756 to MM 757
in Owensboro, KY.
b Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley COTP in the enforcement of the safety zone.
c Regulations. 1 Under the general safety zone regulations in subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph a of this section unless authorized by the COTP
or the COTPs designated representative.
2 To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTPs representative by VHFFM radio channel 16 or phone at 1800253
7465. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTPs designated representative.
d Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced from 6 p.m. through 9
p.m. on August 21, 2021.
Dated: August 5, 2021.
A.M. Beach, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
FR Doc. 202117049 Filed 81121; 8:45 am BILLING CODE 911004P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter VI
Docket ID ED2021OS0107

Federal Preemption and Joint FederalState Regulation and Oversight of the Department of Educations Federal Student Loan Programs and Federal Student Loan Servicers Office of the Secretary, Department of Education.
ACTION: Interpretation.
AGENCY:

The U.S. Department of Education Department issues this interpretation to revise and clarify its position on the legality of State laws and regulations that govern various aspects of the servicing of Federal student loans, such as preventing unfair or deceptive practices, correcting misapplied payments, or addressing refusals to communicate with borrowers. The Department concludes that these State laws are preempted only in limited and discrete respects, as further discussed in this interpretation.
In addition, this interpretation will help facilitate close coordination between the
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:14 Aug 11, 2021

Jkt 253001

Department and its State partners to further enhance both servicer accountability and borrower protections. This interpretation revokes and supersedes the interpretation published on March 12, 2018, Federal Preemption and State Regulation of the Department of Educations Federal Student Loan Programs and Federal Student Loan Servicers 2018
interpretation.
This interpretation is effective on August 12, 2021. We must receive your comments on or before September 13, 2021.

DATES:

Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under FAQ.
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver your comments about the interpretation, address them to Beth Grebeldinger, U.S.
Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, 830 First Street NE, Room 113F4, Washington, DC 20202.
Privacy Note: The Departments policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth Grebeldinger, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, 830
First Street NE, Room 113F4, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone:
2023774018. Email:
Beth.Grabeldinger@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf TDD or a text telephone TTY, call the Federal Relay Service FRS, toll free, at 1800877
8339.
ADDRESSES:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Invitation to comment: We are inviting comment on this interpretation because we value the publics input and
PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

44277

perspective on these critical issues. We will consider public comment received and determine whether it is appropriate to modify or supplement this document.
Background: On March 12, 2018, the Department published in the Federal Register the 2018 interpretation 83 FR
10619. The 2018 interpretation set forth the Departments position at the time on the legality of several State laws regulating Federal student loan servicers, which the Department found to be broadly preempted by Federal law.
In particular, the 2018 interpretation opined that State regulation of the servicing of loans under the William D.
Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Direct Loans impedes uniquely Federal interests. Id. at 10,620. The 2018 interpretation also opined that State regulation of the servicing of loans under the Federal Family Education Loan Program FFEL Loans is preempted to the extent that it undermines uniform administration of the program. Id.
Federal courts have had the opportunity to consider the Departments position on preemption in several recent decisions. Those courts consistently declined to give any deference to the 2018 interpretation, finding it deserving of little weight.
Nelson v. Great Lakes Educ. Loan Services, Inc., 928 F.3d 639, 651 n.2 7th Cir. 2019; see also Lawson-Ross v.
Great Lakes Higher Educ. Corp., 955
F.3d 908, 921 n.13 11th Cir. 2020
same; New York v. Pennsylvania Higher Educ. Assistance Agency, 19 Civ.
9155, 2020 WL 2097640 at 16 n.14
S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2020 same; Student Loan Servicing Alliance v. DC, 351 F.
Supp. 3d 26, 4851 D.D.C. 2018. Their analyses reveal the flaws in the 2018
interpretations insubstantial justifications for its broad claims to preempt State laws on student loan servicing.
The court in Student Loan Servicing Alliance analyzed the 2018
interpretation in some detail, and its analysis has been largely followed by the other courts that have considered these preemption issues. The court found that the 2018 interpretation constitutes informal guidance, having not undergone any formal review process prescribed by statute. See 351
F. Supp. 3d at 4849. Thus, under Wyeth v. Lavine, 555 U.S. 555 2009, the 2018 interpretation would be entitled only to Skidmore deference, which turns on its thoroughness, consistency, and persuasiveness.
Wyeth, 555 U.S. at 577. The court went on to find that the views expressed in the 2018 interpretation warrant no deference because they are conclusory
E:FRFM12AUR1.SGM

12AUR1