Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Notices 105019 

17 12 CFR 1005.10(b). 

information on the amount due and due 

date for their payments. Express 

misrepresentations or 

misrepresentations regarding central 

characteristics such as cost or payment 

due dates are material. 

2.5.3 Debiting Unauthorized Amounts 

Regulation E requires the designated 

payee to obtain written authorization 

before transferring funds from 

consumers’ accounts.17 Examiners 

observed that student loan servicers 

obtained authorizations that allowed 

them to withdraw the monthly payment 

amount, but the servicers then withdrew 

amounts that exceeded the written 

payment amount, in some cases instead 

withdrawing the entire outstanding loan 

balance. Because the authorizations 

allowed the servicers to withdraw only 

the monthly payment amounts, the 

preauthorized electronic funds transfers 

were not authorized in writing and 

therefore violated Regulation E. 

In other instances, consumers signed 

authorizations that allowed servicers to 

withdraw monthly payment amounts for 

certain loans from one deposit account 

and monthly payment amounts for other 

loans from a different deposit account. 

The servicers then withdrew payments 

for all the loans from one of the two 

deposit accounts. Because the 

authorization only allowed the servicers 

to withdraw the monthly payment 

amounts for specific loans and they 

instead withdrew monthly payment 

amounts for other loans, the 

preauthorized electronic funds transfers 

were not authorized in writing and 

therefore violated Regulation E. 

2.5.4 Excessive Delays in Processing of 

Applications for Income-Driven 

Repayment Plans 

Federal student loan borrowers are 

eligible for a number of repayment plans 

that base monthly payments on their 

income and family size; these plans are 

called IDR plans. To enroll in IDR plans, 

consumers must submit applications to 

their servicers who process the 

applications. 

Examiners found that servicers 

engaged in unfair acts or practices when 

they caused consumers to experience 

excessive delays in processing times for 

IDR applications. In many reviewed 

files, it took more than 90 calendar days 

for servicers to process the IDR 

applications. These delays caused or 

were likely to cause substantial injury as 

interest continued to accrue while 

servicers processed IDR applications, so 

excessive delays likely resulted in 

unnecessary accrued interest. In 

addition, the delays may have prevented 

borrowers from making payments which 

count towards loan forgiveness. These 

delays also caused borrowers 

considerable frustration and wasted 

time as they repeatedly tried to obtain 

information from servicers about the 

status of their applications. Consumers 

could not reasonably avoid the injury 

because they do not choose their 

servicer and have no control of how 

long it takes servicers to review and 

evaluate borrowers’ applications. The 

injury to consumers was not outweighed 

by countervailing benefits to consumers 

or to competition. 

2.5.5 Improper Denials of Applications 

for Income-Driven Repayment 

Examiners found that servicers 

engaged in unfair acts or practices when 

they improperly denied consumers’ IDR 

applications. Examiners found that 

servicers denied consumers’ 

applications for failing to provide 

sufficient income documentation 

despite consumers providing sufficient 

documentation of income. Examiners 

also found that servicers denied 

consumers’ applications because they 

had ineligible loan types, when in fact 

the consumers had eligible loans. These 

improper denials caused or were likely 

to cause substantial injury because 

consumers who are improperly denied 

paid or were at risk of paying higher 

monthly payments. Additionally, some 

consumers may have spent time and 

resources addressing the denials. 

Consumers could not reasonably avoid 

the injury because servicers are 

responsible for processing IDR 

applications in accordance with 

processing requirements and consumers 

do not choose their servicers. And the 

injury to consumers is not outweighed 

by countervailing benefits to consumers 

or competition. 

2.5.6 Providing Inaccurate Denial 

Reasons in Response to Income-DrivenRepayment Applications 

Examiners found that servicers 

engaged in deceptive acts or practices 

by providing inaccurate denial reasons 

to consumers who applied for IDR 

plans. The denial letters misled or were 

likely to mislead borrowers as the denial 

reasons were not accurate, and in 

multiple cases, erroneously denied 

eligible consumers. It is reasonable for 

borrowers to expect servicers to 

properly evaluate their eligibility for 

IDR plans and for denial letters to 

accurately explain the reasons why 

servicers denied their IDR applications. 

The misleading representations were 

material as the inaccurate denial reasons 

were likely to influence borrower 

choices with respect to applying for IDR 

plans by, for example, leading to 

borrowers’ confusion about eligibility 

criteria and discouraging borrowers 

from re-applying for an IDR plan by 

telling them to find and provide 

unnecessary additional information in 

order to qualify. 

2.5.7 Failure To Advise Consumers of 

the Option to Verbally Provide Income 

in Connection With Income-DrivenRepayment Applications 

During the COVID–19 pandemic and 

through February 29, 2024, the 

Department of Education allowed 

consumers to apply for IDR plans by 

providing an attestation of income over 

the phone or in writing, this process 

was referred to as self-certification. 

Examiners found that servicers 

engaged in unfair acts or practices by 

failing to advise consumers that they 

could self-certify their income when 

applying for an IDR plan. Consumers 

contacted their servicers to discuss their 

pending IDR applications that were 

delayed due to missing income 

documentation, but the servicer 

representatives did not advise 

consumers that they could provide the 

missing information by making an oral 

attestation during the call. These acts or 

practices caused or were likely to cause 

substantial injury because it caused 

servicers to deny consumers’ 

applications, preventing lower payment 

amounts, potential interest subsidies, 

and credit towards loan forgiveness. 

Consumers could not avoid this injury 

because they do not choose their 

servicers and relied on the servicers to 

provide relevant information regarding 

IDR applications. The injury to 

consumers is not outweighed by 

countervailing benefits to consumers or 

competition. 

Rohit Chopra, 

Director, Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30758 Filed 12–23–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal No. 21–19] 

Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation 

Agency, Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Arms sales notice. 

SUMMARY: The DoD is publishing the 

unclassified text of an arms sales 

notification. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
105020 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Notices 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Pamela Young at (703) 953–6092, 

pamela.a.young14.civ@mail.mil, or 

dsca.ncr.rsrcmgmt.list.cns-mbx@

mail.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

36(b)(1) arms sales notification is 

published to fulfill the requirements of 

section 155 of Public Law 104–164 

dated July 21, 1996. The following is a 

copy of a letter to the Speaker of the 

House of Representatives with attached 

Transmittal 21–19 and Policy 

Justification. 

Dated: December 17, 2024. 

Stephanie J. Bost, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 6001–FR–P 

BILLING CODE 6001–FR–C Transmittal No. 21–19 

Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of 

Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the 

Arms Export Control Act, as amended 

(i) Prospective Purchaser: Kingdom of 

Saudi Arabia 

(ii) Total Estimated Value: 

Major Defense Equipment * $0 billion, 

Other ................................... $1 billion, 

Total ................................. $1 billion. 

Funding Source: National Funds 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1EN26DE24.000</GPH>

DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY 

2800 Defense Pentagon 

The Honorable Mike Johnson 

Spealw of the House 

U.S. House of Representatives 

H-209. The Capitol 

Washingto~ DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Speek~r: 

Wasltington,DC 20301•2800 

DEC 2 2 2023 

Pursuant to the reporting :requirements of Section 36(bX1) of the Arms Export Control 

Act, as amend~ we are forwarding herewith Transmittal No. 21 ·19 concerning the Air Force~s 

proposed Letter(s) of Offer and Acceptance to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for defense articles 

and services estimated to cost $1 billion. We will issue a news release to notify the public of this 

proposed sale upon delivery of this letter to your office. 

Sincerely, 

~a,~ 

· James A. Hurscb 

Director 

Enclosures: 

l. Transmittal 

2~ Policy Justification . . ... . .. 3. ••. Regional Balance (Classified document provided wider separate covet) 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Notices 105021 

(iii) Description and Quantity or 

Quantities of Articles or Services under 

Consideration for Purchase: 

Major Defense Equipment (MDE): 

None 

Non-MDE: 

Continuation of a blanket order 

training program inside and outside 

of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that 

includes, but is not limited to, flight 

training; technical training; 

professional military education; 

specialized training; Mobile 

Training Teams (MTTs); Technical 

Assistance Field Team (TAFT); 

Extended Training Service 

Specialists (ETSS); and English 

language training. These blanket 

order training cases will cover all 

relevant types of training offered by 

or contracted through the United 

States (U.S.) Air Force or 

Department of Defense (DoD) 

Agencies. This training for the 

Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) and 

other Saudi forces will include such 

subjects as civilian casualty 

avoidance; the laws of armed 

conflicts; human rights; command 

and control; and targeting via MTTs 

and/or broader Programs of 

Instruction (POIs). Program 

management; trainers, simulators; 

travel; billeting; and medical 

support may also be included. 

(iv) Military Department: Air Force 

(SR–D–THP) 

(v) Prior Related Cases, if any: SR–D– 

THI, SR–D–THJ, SR–D–THK, SR–D– 

THL, SR–D–THM, SR–D–THN, SR–D– 

THO 

(vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, 

Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None 

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology 

Contained in the Defense Article or 

Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: 

None 

(viii) Date Report Delivered to 

Congress: December 22, 2023 

* As defined in Section 47(6) of the 

Arms Export Control Act. 

POLICY JUSTIFICATION 

Saudi Arabia—Blanket Order Training 

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has 

requested a continuation of a blanket 

order training program inside and 

outside of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 

that includes, but is not limited to, flight 

training; technical training; professional 

military education; specialized training; 

Mobile Training Teams (MTTs); 

Technical Assistance Field Team 

(TAFT); Extended Training Service 

Specialists (ETSS); and English 

language training. These blanket order 

training cases will cover all relevant 

types of training offered by or 

contracted through the U.S. Air Force or 

DoD. This training for the Royal Saudi 

Air Force (RSAF) and other Saudi forces 

will include such subjects as civilian 

casualty avoidance; the laws of armed 

conflicts; human rights; command and 

control; and targeting via MTTs and/or 

broader Programs of Instruction (POIs). 

Program management; trainers, 

simulators; travel; billeting; and medical 

support may also be included. The 

estimated total cost is $1 billion. 

This proposed sale will support the 

foreign policy goals and national 

security objectives of the U.S. by 

improving the security of a friendly 

country that is a force for political 

stability and economic progress in the 

Middle East. 

The proposed sale will improve Saudi 

Arabia’s capability to meet current and 

future threats and increase its 

interoperability with the U.S. through 

comprehensive U.S. Air Force training. 

The training will assist Saudi Arabia by 

fostering a climate of security in the 

region through the improved 

proficiency of the RSAF. Saudi Arabia 

will have no difficulty absorbing this 

training into its armed forces. 

The proposed sale of this equipment 

and support will not alter the basic 

military balance in the region. 

There is no principal contractor for 

the proposed sale. Training will be 

provided by U.S. Government or 

contract vendors based upon 

requirements as they are determined. 

There are no known offset agreements 

proposed in connection with this 

potential sale. 

Implementation of this proposed sale 

will require the temporary or 

continuation of assignment of 

approximately three hundred thirtynine (339) U.S. Government or 

contractor training personnel to Saudi 

Arabia for at least one year with a 

possibility of extension. 

There will be no adverse impact on 

U.S. defense readiness as a result of this 

proposed sale. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30631 Filed 12–23–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6001–FR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal No. 24–16] 

Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation 

Agency, Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Arms sales notice. 

SUMMARY: The DoD is publishing the 

unclassified text of an arms sales 

notification. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Pamela Young at (703) 953–6092, 

pamela.a.young14.civ@mail.mil, or 

dsca.ncr.rsrcmgmt.list.cns-mbx@

mail.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

36(b)(1) arms sales notification is 

published to fulfill the requirements of 

section 155 of Public Law 104–164 

dated July 21, 1996. The following is a 

copy of a letter to the Speaker of the 

House of Representatives with attached 

Transmittal 24–16, Policy Justification, 

and Sensitivity of Technology. 

Dated: December 17, 2024. 

Stephanie J. Bost, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 6001–FR–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1