CFPB Acting Director Mick Mulvaney recently responded to former CFPB Student Loan Ombudsman Seth Frotman’s vocal departure from the Bureau.  As previously reported, Frotman tendered his resignation in a letter—also delivered to members of Congress—which accused Mulvaney of being derelict in his oversight of the “student loan market.”  Among other things,  Frotman accused Mulvaney of undercutting enforcement, undermining the Bureau’s independence, and shielding “bad actors” from scrutiny—collectively, “us[ing] the Bureau to serve the wishes of the most powerful financial companies in America.”

In an interview addressing the letter, Mulvaney has emphasized that he is focused on the explicit statutory authority provided in the Dodd-Frank Act, including the limitations on his oversight of student loans.  When asked about Frotman’s resignation, Mulvaney responded that he “never met the gentleman” and “doesn’t know who he is.”  Mulvaney has served as Acting Director since November 2017.  Frotman joined the Bureau during its creation in 2011 to focus on military lending issues as a senior advisor to Holly Petraeus (the Assistant Director for the Office of Servicemember Affairs) and transitioned to the Private Education Loan Ombudsman in April 2016.  Mulvaney added, “I talked to his supervisor who met with him on a regular basis during the nine months I’ve [been] there; [Frotman] never complained about anything that was happening at the Bureau, so I think he was more interested in getting his name in the paper.”

In his resignation letter, Frotman noted that the “Student Loan Ombudsman,” statutorily created by Section 1035 of the Dodd-Frank Act, was authorized to “provide timely assistance to borrowers,” “compile and analyze” borrower complaints, and “make appropriate recommendations” to the Director of the CFPB, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of the Treasury, and Congressional committees regarding student loans.  Frotman, however, omits any mention of statutory limits to the Ombudsman’s authority.  Section 1035—titled “Private Education Loan Ombudsman”—directs the Ombudsman to “provide timely assistance to borrowers of private education loans,” “compile and analyze data on borrower complaints regarding private education loans” and to “receive, review, and attempt to resolve informally complaints from borrowers of [private education] loans.”

With respect to federal student loans, Section 1035 of the Dodd Frank Act only contemplates the Private Education Loan Ombudsman’s cooperation with the Department of Education’s student loan ombudsman through a memorandum of understanding (MOU).  Mulvaney noted the somewhat informal nature of the MOU created during the Obama administration, referring to it as a “handshake agreement.”  Arguably signaling an intent to defer to the Department of Education on federal student loan issues, Mulvaney stated that the issue he is most “worr[ied] about [is] the growth in …student loans” because federal involvement in the market has created a “disconnect between the making of a loan and the repaying of [a] loan.”

The District of Columbia Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking (DISB) published its final rules under the Student Loan Ombudsman Establishment and Servicing Regulation Amendment Act of 2016.  The final rules became effective when published in the D.C. Register on August 10, 2018.

The rules are unchanged from the latest revisions.  In its notice of publication, the DISB explained that it rejected proposals to create a multi-year licensing period and to allow additional time for servicers to provide requested records to the Commissioner because the Department had disposed of the same issues in prior rounds of rulemaking.

Seth Frotman, the CFPB’s Student Loan Ombudsman, has sent a letter to CFPB Acting Director Mulvaney tendering his resignation effective September 1, 2018.  (In addition to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and Department of Education Secretary DeVos, Mr. Frotman’s letter indicates that copies were sent to various Senate and House lawmakers.)

In his letter, Mr. Frotman is highly critical of the CFPB’s actions in the student loan arena.  He comments that the Bureau’s current leadership “has abandoned its duty to fairly and robustly enforce the law,”  “has made its priorities clear—it will protect the misguided goals of the Trump Administration to the detriment of student loan borrowers,” and “has turned its back on young people and their financial futures.”

 

 

The Department of Education has issued a proposal that would rescind the “Borrower Defense” final rule issued by the ED in November 2016 and replace it with the “Institutional Accountability regulations” contained in the proposal.  Among the major changes to the final rule that would be made by the proposal is the removal of the final rule’s ban on the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements  and class action waivers for borrower defense claims by schools receiving Title IV assistance under the Higher Education Act (HEA).  Comments on the proposal are due by August 30, 2018.

Although the final rule had an initial effective date of July 1, 2017, there has been a series of postponements of the effective date.  A final rule published by the ED in February 2018 established July 1, 2019 as the current effective date.  In the supplementary information accompanying the proposal, the ED indicates that the negotiated rulemaking committee it established to develop proposed revisions to the 2016 final rule did not reach a consensus on the proposal.

The proposal includes the following significant changes to the 2016 final rule:

  • The final rule created a new federal standard for a “borrower defense” asserted with respect to Direct Loans and loans repaid by Direct Consolidated Loans.  A Direct Loan is a federal student loan made by the ED under the Direct Loan Program and a Direct Consolidated Loan is a federal student loan made by the ED under the Direct Loan Program that repays multiple Direct Loans or other specified loans.  A “borrower defense” includes a defense to repayment of amounts owed on such loans and a right to recover amounts previously collected on such loans.  Before 2015, the ED interpreted the Higher Education Act (HEA) to only allow a borrower to raise a “borrower defense” as a defense to repayment in a collection action.  The final rule codified the ED’s new 2015 interpretation that also allowed a borrower to raise a borrower defense in an affirmative claim for loan relief.  In the proposal, the ED seeks comment on whether it should return to its pre-2015 interpretation and only allow “defensive” claims from defaulted borrowers who are in a collections proceeding or accept both “defensive” and “affirmative” claims, including claims from borrowers still in repayment.
  • Prior to the 2016 final rule, a borrower defense could only be asserted based on an act or omission of a school that would give rise to a cause of action against the school under applicable state law.  The final rule created a new federal standard for Direct Loans disbursed after the final rule’s effective date under which a borrower defense could be a non-default, favorable contested judgment against a school, a school’s breach of contract, or a substantial misrepresentation made by a school on which the borrower reasonably relied to his or her detriment when deciding to attend or continue attending the school or deciding to take a Direct Loan.  The proposal would create a different federal standard for defenses to repayment based upon misrepresentations and would remove a breach of contract or judgment as a basis for borrower defense relief.  Instead, a judgment or breach could be considered evidence of a misrepresentation to the extent it bears on an act or omission related to the educational services provided.  Under the proposed federal standard, a defense to payment could only be based on a misrepresentation on which the borrower reasonably relied in deciding to obtain a Direct Loan, or a loan repaid by a Direct Consolidation Loan, for the student to enroll or continue enrollment in a program at the school and the borrower suffered financial harm as a result of the school’s misrepresentation.  A misrepresentation would be defined as a statement, act, or omission by a school to a borrower that is false, misleading, or deceptive, and made with knowledge of its false, misleading, or deceptive nature or with reckless disregard for the truth, and that directly and clearly relates to the making of a Direct Loan, or a loan repaid by a Direct Consolidation Loan, for enrollment at the school or to the provision of educational services for which the loan was made.
  • Under the 2016 final rule, a borrower defense claim based on a substantial misrepresentation could be asserted at any time but, to recover amounts previously collected on a Direct Loan, it had to be asserted not later than six years after the borrower discovered, or reasonably could have discovered, the information constituting the substantial misrepresentation.  The proposal would allow a borrower to assert a defense to payment at any time once the loan is in collections, including to recover amounts previously collected on a Direct Loan.  If the ED decides to continue to allow affirmative borrower defense claims, it proposes to only allow such claims to be filed within three years of the end date of the borrower’s enrollment at the school alleged to have made the misrepresentation.
  • The 2016 final rule bans both mandatory and voluntary pre-dispute arbitration agreements, whether or not they contain opt-out clauses, and class action waivers for borrower defense claims by schools receiving Title IV assistance under the HEA.  In adopting the final rule, the ED rejected the argument that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) barred the ED from including a ban on class action waivers or mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements.  When the final rule was adopted, we expressed our strongly-held view that the ED’s position was incorrect and that the final rule’s arbitration provisions were preempted by the FAA.  In stark contrast, the proposal would allow schools to use pre-dispute arbitration agreements or class action waivers as a condition to enrollment.  Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2018 decision in Epic Systems, the ED states that it believes “the Supreme Court’s recent affirmation of the Federal policy in favor of arbitration may warrant a different approach to these regulations.”  The ED also references Congress’ disapproval of the CFPB’s arbitration rule pursuant to the Congressional Review Act and states that “[i]n light of Congress’ clear action, the Department believes a change in its position to align with the strong Federal policy in favor of arbitration is appropriate.”  The ED’s supplementary information describes the potential advantages of arbitration, including that it can be quicker than litigation and “allow borrowers to obtain greater relief than they would in a consumer class action case where attorneys often benefit most.”  The proposal would require schools using pre-dispute arbitration agreements or class action waivers to satisfy the following conditions:
    • The school must make available on its website where information about admissions and costs is presented (which cannot solely be an intranet website), a plain language disclosure that the agreement or waiver is a condition of enrollment.
    • As part of entrance counseling, a school must provide: a description of its dispute resolution process that the borrower has agreed to pursue as a condition of enrollment, including the name and contact information for the individual or office that the borrower can contact regarding a dispute; a written description of how and when the agreement or waiver applies, how the borrower enters into the arbitration process or, for class action waivers, alternative processes the borrower can pursue to seek redress; and who to contact with borrower questions.

The proposal also includes changes relating to an array of other subjects such as: the charging of collection costs to defaulted borrowers by guaranty agencies; the capitalization of interest on loans sold by guaranty agencies after the completion of loan rehabilitation; financial responsibility provisions that establish the conditions or events that have or may have an adverse material effect on a school’s financial condition and which warrant the school’s provision of a letter of credit or other financial protection to the ED; the circumstances under which borrowers can qualify for a closed school discharge; and actions by the ED against schools to collect loan amounts discharged based on successful borrower defense claims or to obtain reimbursement of discharge amounts repaid to borrowers by the ED based on such claims.

 

 

The California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) has published a second round of modifications to its proposed regulations under the State’s Student Loan Servicing Act.  As previously covered, the DBO published its first round of revised rules last month.

The latest revisions to the regulations clarify servicer responsibilities related to application of payments, borrower communications and handling of qualified written requests (QWRs), and recordkeeping requirements, among other miscellaneous changes.

Payments

The initial regulations provided that a servicer must credit any online payment the same day it is paid by the borrower, if paid before the daily cut off time for same day crediting posted on the servicer’s website, or the next day, if paid after the posted cut off time.  These requirements, which were unmodified by the first round of revisions, have now been changed to clarify that servicers must only apply payments the same or next business day, depending on whether received before or after the published cut off time.

Borrower Communications and Qualified Written Requests

The Act requires that a servicer respond to QWRs by acknowledging receipt of the request within five business days and, within 30 days, providing information relating to the request and an explanation of any account action, if applicable.  The first round of revised regulations added the limitation that a servicer is only required to send a borrower a total of three notices for duplicative requests.  The latest revisions add two additional provisions.  First, servicers are only required to send an acknowledgement of receipt within five days if the action requested by the borrower has not been taken within five days of receipt.  Second, servicers may designate a specific electronic or physical address to which QWRs must be sent.  If designated, however, this information must be posted on the servicer’s website.

The revised regulations also further specify what is required of customer service representatives.  Now, federal and private loan servicer representatives must inform callers about alternative repayment plans if the caller inquires about repayment options.  Federal loan servicers must now also inform callers about loan forgiveness benefits, if the caller inquires about repayment options.  These regulations have evolved significantly.  The initial regulations required that representatives “be capable of discussing” alternative repayment plan and loan forgiveness benefits with callers, and be trained in the difference between forbearance and alternative repayment plans.  The latest revisions have added specific triggers for discussing repayment options—and forgiveness benefits for federal loans.

Servicer Records

The first round of revisions eliminated the DBO’s specific record keeping formatting requirements.  In its place, the latest round of revisions has added the general requirement that the books and records required by the act must be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.  The new revisions also change the information required as part of the aggregate student loan servicing report to require the number of monthly payments required to repay the loan.

The modifications are subject to comment until July 25, 2018.  As with the first round, the revisions will not be effective until approved by the Office of Administrative Law and filed with the Secretary of State.

The CFPB has issued a new report, “Data Point: Final Student Loan Payments and Broader Household Borrowing,” which looks at repayment patterns for student loans and how borrowers who have repaid their student loans subsequently use credit.  The CFPB’s analysis focuses on borrowers when they first pay off individual student loans.  The report uses data from the Bureau’s Consumer Credit Panel, a nationally-representative sample of approximately five million de-identified credit records maintained by one of the three nationwide credit reporting companies.

Key findings include the following:

  • Most borrowers paying off a student loan do so before the scheduled due date of the final payment, often with a single large final payment.  The median final payment made on a student loan is 55 times larger than the scheduled payment (implying a payoff at least 55 months ahead of schedule), with 94 percent of final payments exceeding the scheduled payment and only 6 percent of loans paid off with the final few payments equal to the scheduled payments.
  • Most borrowers paying off a student loan early also simultaneously reduce their credit card balances and make large payments on their other student loans.  These borrowers are also 31 percent more likely to take out their first mortgage loan in the year following the payoff.  While this evidence shows that early student loan payoffs coincide with increased home purchases, the simultaneous reduction in credit card and other student loan balances suggests that increased wealth or income may influence when borrowers pay off student loans, reduce credit card balances, and purchase homes.
  • Most borrowers who pay off a student loan by making all of the scheduled payments pay down other debts in the months following payoff rather than take on new debt.  Those borrowers with additional student loans put 24 percent and 16 percent of their newly-available funds toward, respectively, paying down their other student loans faster and reducing credit card balances.  Unlike borrowers paying off a student loan early, borrowers paying off on schedule are not more likely to take out a mortgage for the first time.

The CFPB observes that because the results discussed in the report show that repayment of one type of debt directly affects payments and borrowing on other kinds of debt, “policies and products that change repayment terms or balances for one credit product are likely to have spillover effects on  others, either enhancing the intended effects (e.g. payment relief, increased credit access) or leading to compensating shifts (e.g. reallocated payments or borrowing).”  As a result, the CFPB believes that analyzing borrower behavior across all liabilities can improve its understanding of the underlying mechanisms that influence behavior and allow it to more accurately predict the impact of new policies or products on consumers and the overall marketplace.

The CFPB also notes that while its analysis focuses on student loan borrowers who successfully pay off their loans, similar approaches could be applied to struggling student borrowers and might shed light on how borrowers use other credit products to cope with their student debt, how their access to other credit may be inhibited, and how available repayment plans and other programs change these outcomes.

The California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) has published modifications to its proposed regulations under the State’s Student Loan Servicing Act.  As previously covered, the DBO published notice of its initial proposed rules on September 8, 2017.  A blackline of the changes is available here.

The initial regulations mandated extensive customer service obligations.  Among other things, the regulations required that a servicer post a plain language description of the repayment and loan forgiveness options available for federal student loans on its website, with links to specified Department of Education resources.  The initial regulations also required this same repayment and loan forgiveness information be sent to each borrower, with the servicer’s toll-free customer service telephone number, at least once per calendar year (i.e., an “annual notice”).  The initial regulations provided similar requirements for a servicer of private student loans, with the added requirement that a private student loan servicer establish policies and procedures to ensure the provision of accurate private student loan repayment arrangement information and consistent presentation of those arrangements to similarly situated borrowers.  The initial regulations also provided requirements for handling borrower inquiries (“Qualified Written Requests”).  All communications were required to be sent according to the borrower’s preferred method of communication.

The proposed modifications:

  • clarify that only a servicer of federal student loans must post information about federal repayment and forgiveness options on its website or in its annual notices
  • permit a servicer of private student loans to provide information about repayment options customized to the borrower by eliminating the requirement that servicers must prominently post information about “any alternative repayment plan” for the student loans it services on its website homepage (though private loan servicers must still provide an annual notice);
  • allow a servicer to provide information about repayment and loan forgiveness options through links on its homepage, instead of aggregating the information on the homepage.
  • create a new rule that private student loan servicer representatives available at the servicer’s toll-free number must be “fully trained about, inform and discuss with callers, any alternative repayment plan offered by the servicer or promissory note holder” for the private student loan(s);
  • provide that annual notices may be sent with any other annual communications;
  • require that borrowers who do not consent to electronic communications receive communications through the U.S. Postal Service and, only if undeliverable, through email; and
  • create a new rule (that is somewhat ambiguous) that a servicer is only required to send a borrower a total of three notices stating that there will be no response to a Qualified Written Request because the borrower has previously submitted the same request, received a response, and provided no new information in its subsequent, duplicative Qualified Written Request.

The initial regulations also established payment requirements, including that a servicer credit any electronic payment on the day “electronically paid by the borrower” if received before a posted cut-off time and that a servicer credit physical payments on the day received.  The initial regulations also mandated that account information reflect payments within three days and be available to the borrower via a secure log-in system with a consolidated report of the borrower’s transaction history.

The proposed modifications:

  • clarify that, for payments (primarily, if not exclusively, paper checks) received without payment instructions, a servicer has a reasonable period of time (not to exceed ten business days) to research and apply the payment and update a borrower’s account; and
  • revise the rule regarding co-signers to require that a servicer provide a process for co-signers to follow to check to be sure that co-signer payments are credited only to the loan(s) the co-signer has co-signed.

The initial regulations provided that a servicer must maintain a current student loan servicing report (a record of all loans being serviced) including, with respect to each student loan serviced: the borrower’s name; the number of student loans serviced for each borrower; the loan number for each loan; the loan type; the origination amount; the interest rate(s) and maturity date for each loan; the loan balance and status for each loan; the cumulative balance owing for each borrower; whether a borrower has an application pending for, or is repaying under, an alternative repayment plan, listing the plan chosen; and whether the borrower has an application pending for any loan forgiveness benefit.  For each individual loan, the servicer must also maintain borrower records, including the borrower’s application, agreement, qualified written requests, and other disclosures and statements provided to the borrower.  The initial regulations also provided specific technical requirements for electronic document storage.

The proposed modifications:

  • clarify that servicers may provide the required aggregated servicing information through reports segregated by loan type;
  • revise the recordkeeping rule to require that a servicer maintain records for three years after pay off, assignment, or transfer unless a contract requires a shorter period; and
  • eliminate the specific optical image reproduction and electronic record storage requirements of Section 2056(b).

The initial rules also provided a variety of miscellaneous rules regarding licensing (including provisions requiring a servicer to submit policies and procedures related to borrower protection requirements) and account management.

The proposed modifications:

  • remove the requirement that a servicer appoint the Commissioner as their agent for service of process;
  • provide that, between regulatory examinations, a servicer need not submit changes to their policies and procedures related to borrower protection requirements; and
  • delete the rule requiring monthly reconciliations of trust accounts.

The modifications are subject to comment until June 18, 2018 and will not be effective until approved by the Office of Administrative Law and filed with the Secretary of State.  The short comment period suggests that the DBO intends to have the rules finalized by the effective date of the Student Loan Servicing Act, July 1, 2018.

The District of Columbia Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking (DISB) has issued a second round of revised emergency and proposed rules under the Student Loan Ombudsman Establishment and Servicing Regulation Amendment Act of 2016.  The latest revision, backdated to April 20 from its May release, provides “numerous substantive changes” in response to public comments.  A blackline of the revised emergency rules showing changes from the rules adopted in December 2017 can be found here.  The Student Loan Servicing Alliance filed a lawsuit in March 2018 challenging the rules as preempted by federal law.

The first revision made one substantive change from the initial rules by reducing the annual assessment fee from $6.60 per loan to $.50 per borrower.  The second revision further modifies the annual assessment fee by eliminating the additional “fixed” component.  Now, licensees are subject only to the volume-based assessment.  Application fees (initial and renewal) and reinstatement fees have also been reduced by $100.

For the first time, the proposed rules explicitly acknowledge and yield to federal law.  The DISB recordkeeping rules now apply “[e]xcept to the extent prohibited by federal law” and allow the Commissioner to “waive or reduce” the requirements if compliance “would require the licensee to violate federal law.”  The revisions also add protections by prohibiting public disclosure of the records under the Freedom of Information Act.

Unlike the recordkeeping provisions, the examination authority contains no deference to federal law.  The examination authority has also been expanded to allow the Commissioner to consider reports prepared by other federal or state agencies in conducting an examination and to conduct joint examinations with federal or state agencies.  The rules now also explicitly allow the Commissioner to request “policies and procedures, consumer complaints, financial statements, and any other reasonable information.”

Most significantly, the revisions have eliminated the initial penalty provisions, which allowed the Commissioner to impose a penalty of up to $5,000 “for each occurrence of each violation of the act” by a licensee and up to $25,000 “for each occurrence of each violation of the act” by an unlicensed person.  The revisions have also reduced the penalty for failure to timely file an annual report from up to $1,000 per business day to up to $50 per day.

The revised rules also expand the oversight of the DISB.  The rules now require updating of any information on file with the commissioner within ten business days of it become inaccurate.  Additionally, licensees must now notify the Commissioner in writing of “any material fact or condition” which may preclude the licensee from fulfilling its contractual obligations.

 

 

The New Jersey Attorney General, Gurbir Grewal, has sent a letter to Department of Education Secretary Betsy Devos in which the NJ AG invites the ED to work with his office “to ensure that any investigations of fraudulent activities by educational institutions are completed properly, rather than ended prematurely or allowed to grow dormant.”

The NJ AG indicates that his invitation is intended to put to rest recent reports that the ED has discontinued investigations into potentially fraudulent activity at several large for-profit colleges and restricted communications between the ED’s staff and state AGs about such investigations.  He asserts that “[a]bandoning the Department’s cooperative relationships with State Attorneys General could only harm the public interest we should be working together to serve.”

The NJ AG asks the ED to let his office partner with the ED if it continues to pursue the investigations it “reportedly has (or had) in progress” or, if the ED will not pursue such investigations, to let his office “pick up where you leave off” and give it access to the ED’s files (claiming that his office can arrange to protect the confidentiality of any shared investigative files.)

 

On May 15, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan signed into law a bill that, among other things, establishes the role of Student Loan Ombudsman within the Office of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation and sets forth various duties related to that position.

Maryland SB 1068, titled the Financial Consumer Protection Act of 2018, represents a scaled down version of an attempt by state lawmakers to regulate student loan servicers. An earlier version of the bill contained language that would have created a licensing regime for servicers, similar to what the District of Columbia, California, Connecticut, Illinois, and Washington have enacted over the past couple of years. Instead, SB 1068 enacts the other key prong of such recent legislation: the creation of an ombudsman role to monitor student lending and servicing activity within the state.

Under the new law, the Student Loan Ombudsman is required to:

  • Receive and review complaints from student loan borrowers;
  • Attempt to resolve complaints by collaborating with higher education institutions, student loan servicers, and others, as specified;
  • Compile and analyze complaint data (and, as specified, disclose that data);
  • Help student loan borrowers understand their rights and responsibilities;
  • Provide information to the public and others;
  • Disseminate information about the availability of the ombudsman to address student loan concerns;
  • Analyze and monitor the development and implementation of federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and policies on student loan borrowers;
  • By October 1, 2019, establish a student loan borrower education course that includes educational presentations and material about student education loans;
  • Make recommendations regarding statutory and regulatory methods to resolve borrower problems and concerns; and
  • Make recommendations on necessary changes to Maryland law to ensure the student loan servicing industry is fair, transparent, and equitable, including whether licensing or registration of student loan servicers should be required in Maryland.

The last item on this list suggests that a licensing or registration requirement could be forthcoming. However, under the law as enacted, new obligations for student loan servicers are presently limited to requiring each student loan servicer operating in Maryland to (1) designate an individual to represent the servicer in communications with the ombudsman and (2) provide appropriate contact information for that designee to the ombudsman.

In addition to establishing the Student Loan Ombudsman role, SB 1068 contains a number of noteworthy changes to Maryland’s consumer finance statutes, including (1) expanding the definition of “unfair and deceptive trade practices” under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) to include “abusive” practices; (2) providing that unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices include violations of the federal Military Lending Act or the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act; (3) adding various provisions related to consumer lending, including raising the Maryland Consumer Loan Law’s licensing trigger from $6,000 to $25,000 (thus expanding the scope of the statute’s licensing requirement); (4) increasing the maximum civil penalties for violations of MCPA and several other financial licensing and regulatory laws; (5) allocating additional resources for enforcement of Maryland’s consumer protection laws; and (6) prohibiting consumer reporting agencies from charging for a placement, temporary lift, or removal of a security freeze.