80 FR 48684 - Debit Card Interchange Fees and Routing
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 157 (August 14, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 157 (August 14, 2015)
| Page Range | 48684-48686 | |
| FR Document | 2015-19979 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 157 (Friday, August 14, 2015)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 48684-48686] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-19979] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 235 [Regulation II; Docket No. R-1404] RIN No. 7100-AD 63 Debit Card Interchange Fees and Routing AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ACTION: Clarification. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Board is publishing a clarification of Regulation II (Debit Card Interchange Fees and Routing). Regulation II implements, among other things, standards for assessing whether interchange transaction fees for electronic debit transactions are reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer with respect to the transaction, as required by section 920 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. On March 21, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the Board's Final Rule. The Court also held that one aspect of the rule--the Board's treatment of transactions- monitoring costs--required further explanation from the Board, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Board is explaining its treatment of transactions-monitoring costs in this Clarification. DATES: Effective August 14, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Martin, Associate General Counsel (202-452-3198), or Clinton Chen, Attorney (202-452-3952), Legal Division; for users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact (202-263-4869); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION I. Background The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer-Protection Act (the ``Dodd-Frank Act'') was enacted on July 21, 2010.\1\ Section 1075 of the Dodd-Frank Act amends the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (``EFTA'') (15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq.) to add a new section 920 regarding interchange transaction fees and rules for payment card transactions.\2\ EFTA section 920(a)(2) provides that the amount of any interchange transaction fee that an issuer receives or charges with respect to an electronic debit transaction must be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer with respect to the transaction.\3\ Section 920(a)(3) requires the Board to establish standards for assessing whether an interchange transaction fee is reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer with respect to the transaction. Without limiting the full range of costs that the Board may consider, section 920(a)(4)(B) requires the Board to distinguish between two types of costs [[Page 48685]] when establishing standards under section 920(a)(3). In particular, section 920(a)(4)(B) requires the Board to distinguish between ``the incremental cost incurred by an issuer for the role of the issuer in the authorization, clearance, or settlement of a particular electronic debit transaction,'' which the statute requires the Board to consider, and ``other costs incurred by an issuer which are not specific to a particular electronic debit transaction,'' which the statute prohibits the Board from considering. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). \2\ EFTA section 920 is codified as 15 U.S.C. 1693o-2. EFTA section 920(c)(8) defines ``an interchange transaction fee'' (or ``interchange fee'') as any fee established, charged, or received by a payment card network for the purpose of compensating an issuer for its involvement in an electronic debit transaction. \3\ Electronic debit transaction (or ``debit card transaction'') is defined in EFTA section 920(c)(5) as a transaction in which a person uses a debit card. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under EFTA section 920(a)(5), the Board may allow for an adjustment to the amount of an interchange transaction fee received or charged by an issuer if (1) such adjustment is reasonably necessary to make allowance for costs incurred by the issuer in preventing fraud in relation to electronic debit card transactions involving that issuer, and (2) the issuer complies with fraud-prevention standards established by the Board. Those standards must, among other things, require issuers to take effective steps to reduce the occurrence of, and costs from, fraud in relation to electronic debit transactions, including through the development and implementation of cost-effective fraud-prevention technology. The Board promulgated its final rule implementing standards for assessing whether interchange transaction fees meet the requirements of section 920(a) in July 2011. (Regulation II, Debit Card Interchange Fees and Routing, ``Final Rule,'' codified at 12 CFR part 235).\4\ Among the provisions of the Final Rule was one relating to transactions-monitoring costs. Transactions-monitoring costs are costs incurred by the issuer during the authorization process to detect indications of fraud or other anomalies in order to assist in the issuer's decision to authorize or decline the transaction. The Board included transactions-monitoring costs as part of the interchange fee standard called for in section 920(a)(3)(A) (costs incurred by an issuer for the issuer's role in the authorization of a particular transaction) based on the Board's determination that these costs are incurred in the course of effecting a particular transaction and an integral part of the authorization of a specific electronic debit transaction. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ Regulation II also implemented a separate provision of section 920 relating to network exclusivity and routing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Board amended Regulation II on August 3, 2012 to implement the fraud-prevention cost adjustment permitted by EFTA section 920(a)(5).\5\ Fraud-prevention costs included in that adjustment included costs associated with research and development of new fraud technologies, card reissuance due to fraudulent activity, data security, and card activation.\6\ These costs are not incurred during the transaction as part of the authorization process. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ See 77 FR 46,258 (Aug. 3, 2012). \6\ See 77 FR at 46,264. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On March 21, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the Board's Final Rule relating to the interchange fee standard. NACS v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 746 F.3d 474 (D.C. Cir. 2014).\7\ The Court of Appeals held, however, that one aspect of the rule--the Board's treatment of transactions-monitoring costs--required further explanation from the Board, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Board's position that ``transactions-monitoring costs can reasonably qualify both as costs `specific to a particular transaction' (section 920(a)(4)(B)) and as fraud-prevention costs (section 920(a)(5)).'' 746 F.3d at 492. The Court held, however, that the Board had not adequately articulated its reasons for including transactions-monitoring in the interchange fee standard rather than in the fraud-prevention adjustment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ The U.S. Supreme Court denied the retailers' petition for a writ of certiorari on January 20, 2015. 135 S. Ct. 1170 (2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Rationale for Including Transactions-Monitoring Costs in the Interchange Fee Standard In the Final Rule, the Board identified the types of costs that could not be included in the interchange fee standard under section 920(a)(4)(B)(ii) (other costs ``not specific to a particular transaction'') on the basis of whether those costs are ``incurred in the course of effecting'' transactions.\8\ Costs that were ``not incurred in the course of effecting any electronic debit transaction'' were determined to be outside of the allowable ambit of the interchange fee standard, but the standard could include ``any cost that is not prohibited--i.e., any cost that is incurred in effecting any electronic debit transaction.'' \9\ Thus, for example, the costs of equipment, hardware, software, and labor associated with transactions processing were properly included in the interchange fee standard because no particular transaction can occur without incurring these costs, and thus these costs are ``specific to a particular transaction.'' \10\ In upholding the rule, the Court of Appeals found this to be ``reasonable line-drawing.'' \11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ 76 FR 43,394, 43,426 (July 20, 2011). \9\ Id. \10\ 76 FR at 43,430. \11\ 746 F.3d at 490. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The same rationale supports including transactions-monitoring costs in the interchange fee standard. Transactions-monitoring systems, such as neural networks and fraud-risk scoring systems, assist in the authorization process by providing information needed by the issuer in deciding whether the issuer should authorize the transaction before the issuer decides to approve or decline the transaction. Like other authorization steps, such as confirming that a card is valid and authenticating the cardholder, transactions-monitoring is integral to an issuer's decision to authorize a specific transaction.\12\ In fact, most costs of the authorization process (which are costs Congress required to be considered in determining the interchange fee) assist in preventing some type of fraud. Steps in the authorization process may include ensuring that the transaction is not against an account that has been closed, checking to be sure the card has not been reported lost or stolen, checking that there is an adequate balance, and authenticating the cardholder. Like transactions-monitoring, these authorization steps are all ``specific to a particular transaction'' in the sense that they occur in connection with each transaction that is authorized or declined. Because the statute requires the Board to consider incremental authorization costs in setting the interchange fee standard, the Board concluded that that it should consider the costs of all activities that are integral to authorization, even if those costs are also incurred for the dual purpose of helping to prevent fraud. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ 76 FR at 43,430-31. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- By contrast, fraud-prevention costs that the Board used to calculate the separate fraud-prevention adjustment authorized under section 920(a)(5) were not necessary to effect a particular transaction and were not part of the authorization, clearing, or settlement process, and thus a particular electronic debit transaction could occur without the issuer incurring these costs. As the Board stated in the Final Rule, the types of fraud-prevention activities considered in connection with the fraud-prevention adjustment were those activities designed to prevent debit card fraud at times other than when the issuer is authorizing, settling, or clearing a transaction.\13\ For example, in setting the fraud-prevention adjustment, the Board considered costs associated with research and development of new [[Page 48686]] fraud prevention technologies, card reissuance due to fraudulent activity, data security, and card activation.\14\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ 76 FR at 43,431. \14\ 77 FR at 46,264. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As noted above, section 920(a)(4)(B) specifically directs the Board to consider in establishing the interchange fee standard the costs ``incurred by the issuer for the role of the issuer in the authorization, clearance or settlement of a particular transaction.'' Transactions monitoring is an integral part of the authorization process, so that the costs incurred in that process are part of the authorization costs that the Board is required by the statute to consider when establishing the interchange fee standard. In addition, the statutory language of section 920(a)(5), which differs in important respects from section 920(a)(4)(B), supports the Board's decision to include transactions-monitoring costs in the interchange fee standard rather than in the separate fraud prevention adjustment. The costs considered in section 920(a)(5)(A)(i) are those of preventing fraud ``in relation to electronic debit transactions,'' rather than costs of ``a particular electronic debit transaction'' referenced in section 920(a)(4)(B). Congress's elimination of the word ``particular'' and its use of the more general phrase ``in relation to,'' along with its use of the plural ``transactions,'' indicates that the fraud-prevention adjustment may take into account an issuer's fraud prevention costs over a broad spectrum of transactions that are not linked to a particular transaction. Moreover, section 920(a)(5) permits the Board to adopt a separate adjustment ``to make allowance for costs incurred by the issuer in preventing fraud in relation to electronic debit transactions involving that issuer'' if certain standards are met, and directs that those standards include that the issuers take steps to ``reduce the occurrence of, and costs from, fraud in relation to electronic debit transactions,'' including ``development and implementation of cost- effective fraud prevention technology.'' Section 920(a)(5)(A)(i), (A)(ii)(II) (emphasis supplied). The use of the general phrase ``fraud in relation to electronic debit transactions'' and the specific reference to developing fraud prevention technology suggest a Congressional intent to use the fraud prevention adjustment to encourage issuers to develop and adopt programmatic improvements to address fraud outside of the context of particular transactions that incur costs for authorization, clearance, or settlement. The types of costs the Board included in the separate fraud prevention adjustment are programmatic costs, such as researching and developing new fraud prevention technologies and data security, and other costs that encourage enhanced fraud prevention that are not necessary to effect particular transactions. The Board is publishing this explanation in accordance with the opinion of the Court of Appeals. By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 10, 2015. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 2015-19979 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
![48684 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 157 / Friday, August 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
require action by any person or entity Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. things, standards for assessing whether
regulated by the NRC. Also, the final 1704 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act interchange transaction fees for
rule does not change the substantive of 2005, Pub. L. 109–58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005). electronic debit transactions are
responsibilities of any person or entity Section 71.97 also issued under sec. 301, reasonable and proportional to the cost
Pub. L. 96–295, 94 Stat. 789–790.
regulated by the NRC. Accordingly, for incurred by the issuer with respect to
the reasons stated, the NRC finds, ■2. In § 71.4, revise the definition of the transaction, as required by section
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that good Contamination to read as follows: 920 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.
cause exists to make this rule effective On March 21, 2014, the Court of
§ 71.4 Definitions.
upon publication. Appeals for the District of Columbia
* * * * * Circuit upheld the Board’s Final Rule.
Correction to the Preamble Contamination means the presence of The Court also held that one aspect of
In FR Doc. 2015–14212 appearing on a radioactive substance on a surface in the rule—the Board’s treatment of
page 33987 in the Federal Register of quantities in excess of 0.4 Bq/cm2 (1 × transactions-monitoring costs—required
Friday, June 12, 2015, the following 10¥5 mCi/cm2) for beta and gamma further explanation from the Board, and
corrections to the preamble are made: emitters and low toxicity alpha emitters, remanded the matter for further
1. On page 33988, in the second or 0.04 Bq/cm2 (1 × 10¥6 mCi/cm2) for proceedings. The Board is explaining its
column, the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION all other alpha emitters. treatment of transactions-monitoring
CONTACT section is corrected to read as (1) Fixed contamination means costs in this Clarification.
follows: contamination that cannot be removed
DATES: Effective August 14, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: from a surface during normal conditions
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Solomon Sahle, Office of Nuclear of transport.
(2) Non-fixed contamination means Stephanie Martin, Associate General
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Counsel (202–452–3198), or Clinton
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, contamination that can be removed from
a surface during normal conditions of Chen, Attorney (202–452–3952), Legal
Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone: Division; for users of
301–415–3781; email: Solomon.Sahle@ transport.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
nrc.gov. * * * * *
(TDD) only, contact (202–263–4869);
2. On page 34010, in the third ■ 3. In § 71.70, revise paragraph (a), fifth Board of Governors of the Federal
column, last paragraph, in Section XVII, sentence, to read as follows: Reserve System, 20th and C Streets
Incorporation by Reference under 1 CFR NW., Washington, DC 20551.
§ 71.70 Incorporations by reference.
part 51—Reasonable Availability to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Interested Parties, the first sentence is (a) * * * The materials can be
corrected to read as follows: examined, by appointment, at the NRC’s I. Background
The two ISO standards incorporated Technical Library, which is located at
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
by reference into 10 CFR 71.75 may be Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville
and Consumer-Protection Act (the
examined, by appointment, at the NRC’s Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852;
‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’) was enacted on July
Technical Library, which is located at telephone: 301–415–7000; email:
21, 2010.1 Section 1075 of the Dodd-
Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Library.Resource@nrc.gov. The materials
Frank Act amends the Electronic Fund
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852; are also available from the sources listed
Transfer Act (‘‘EFTA’’) (15 U.S.C. 1693
telephone: 301–415–7000; email: below. * * *
et seq.) to add a new section 920
Library.Resource@nrc.gov. * * * * * regarding interchange transaction fees
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 71 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day and rules for payment card
of August, 2015. transactions.2 EFTA section 920(a)(2)
Criminal penalties, Hazardous For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. provides that the amount of any
materials transportation, Incorporation Helen Chang, interchange transaction fee that an
by reference, Nuclear materials, issuer receives or charges with respect
Acting Chief, Rules, Announcements, and
Packaging and containers, Reporting Directives Branch, Division of Administrative to an electronic debit transaction must
and recordkeeping requirements. Services, Office of Administration. be reasonable and proportional to the
For the reasons set out in the [FR Doc. 2015–20027 Filed 8–13–15; 8:45 am] cost incurred by the issuer with respect
preamble and under the authority of the BILLING CODE 7590–01–P to the transaction.3 Section 920(a)(3)
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; requires the Board to establish standards
the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, for assessing whether an interchange
as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM transaction fee is reasonable and
the NRC is adopting the following proportional to the cost incurred by the
correcting amendments to 10 CFR part 12 CFR Part 235 issuer with respect to the transaction.
71: Without limiting the full range of costs
[Regulation II; Docket No. R–1404]
that the Board may consider, section
PART 71—PACKAGING AND RIN No. 7100–AD 63 920(a)(4)(B) requires the Board to
TRANSPORTATION OF RADIOACTIVE distinguish between two types of costs
MATERIAL Debit Card Interchange Fees and
Routing 1 Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 2 EFTA section 920 is codified as 15 U.S.C.
continues to read as follows: AGENCY: Board of Governors of the 1693o–2. EFTA section 920(c)(8) defines ‘‘an
Federal Reserve System
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Authority: Atomic Energy Act secs. 53, 57, interchange transaction fee’’ (or ‘‘interchange fee’’)
ACTION: Clarification. as any fee established, charged, or received by a
62, 63, 81, 161, 182, 183, 223, 234, 1701 (42 payment card network for the purpose of
U.S.C. 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2201, compensating an issuer for its involvement in an
2232, 2233, 2273, 2282, 2297f); Energy SUMMARY: The Board is publishing a
electronic debit transaction.
Reorganization Act secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 clarification of Regulation II (Debit Card 3 Electronic debit transaction (or ‘‘debit card
(42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); Nuclear Interchange Fees and Routing). transaction’’) is defined in EFTA section 920(c)(5)
Waste Policy Act sec. 180 (42 U.S.C. 10175); Regulation II implements, among other as a transaction in which a person uses a debit card.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Aug 13, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR1.SGM 14AUR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_48841/page/1.svg)
![48686 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 157 / Friday, August 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
fraud prevention technologies, card costs the Board included in the separate 7400.9 and publication of conforming
reissuance due to fraudulent activity, fraud prevention adjustment are amendments.
data security, and card activation.14 programmatic costs, such as researching ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Y,
As noted above, section 920(a)(4)(B) and developing new fraud prevention Airspace Designations and Reporting
specifically directs the Board to technologies and data security, and Points, and subsequent amendments can
consider in establishing the interchange other costs that encourage enhanced be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/
fee standard the costs ‘‘incurred by the fraud prevention that are not necessary airtraffic/publications/. The Order is
issuer for the role of the issuer in the to effect particular transactions. also available for inspection at the
authorization, clearance or settlement of The Board is publishing this National Archives and Records
a particular transaction.’’ Transactions explanation in accordance with the Administration (NARA). For
monitoring is an integral part of the opinion of the Court of Appeals. information on the availability of this
authorization process, so that the costs
By order of the Board of Governors of the material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030,
incurred in that process are part of the Federal Reserve System, August 10, 2015. or go to http://www.archives.gov/
authorization costs that the Board is
Robert deV. Frierson, federal_register/code_of_federal-
required by the statute to consider when
establishing the interchange fee Secretary of the Board. regulations/ibr_locations.html.
[FR Doc. 2015–19979 Filed 8–13–15; 8:45 am] FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace
standard. In addition, the statutory
Designations and Reporting Points, is
language of section 920(a)(5), which BILLING CODE P
published yearly and effective on
differs in important respects from
September 15. For further information,
section 920(a)(4)(B), supports the
you can contact the Airspace Policy and
Board’s decision to include DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
transactions-monitoring costs in the ATC Regulations Group, Federal
interchange fee standard rather than in Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Administration, 800
the separate fraud prevention Independence Avenue SW., Washington
adjustment. The costs considered in 14 CFR Part 1 DC 29591; Telephone: (202) 267–8783.
section 920(a)(5)(A)(i) are those of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob
preventing fraud ‘‘in relation to Definitions and Abbreviations Riedl, Federal Aviation Administration,
electronic debit transactions,’’ rather Operations Support Group, Western
CFR Correction
than costs of ‘‘a particular electronic Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
debit transaction’’ referenced in section In Title 14 of the Code of Federal Renton, WA, 98057; Telephone (425)
920(a)(4)(B). Congress’s elimination of Regulations, Parts 1 to 59, revised as of 203–4534.
the word ‘‘particular’’ and its use of the January 1, 2015, on pages 12 and 13, in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
more general phrase ‘‘in relation to,’’ § 1.1, the definitions beginning with VA
and ending with VS are removed. Authority for this Rulemaking
along with its use of the plural
‘‘transactions,’’ indicates that the fraud- [FR Doc. 2015–20045 Filed 8–13–15; 8:45 am] The FAA’s authority to issue rules
prevention adjustment may take into BILLING CODE 1505–01–D regarding aviation safety is found in
account an issuer’s fraud prevention Title 49 of the United States Code.
costs over a broad spectrum of Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
transactions that are not linked to a DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION authority of the FAA Administrator.
particular transaction. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
Moreover, section 920(a)(5) permits Federal Aviation Administration describes in more detail the scope of the
the Board to adopt a separate agency’s authority. This rulemaking is
adjustment ‘‘to make allowance for costs 14 CFR Part 71 promulgated under the authority
incurred by the issuer in preventing [Docket No. FAA–2015–3325; Airspace described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
fraud in relation to electronic debit Docket No. 15–AWP–15] Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
transactions involving that issuer’’ if section, the FAA is charged with
certain standards are met, and directs Amendment of Class D and E prescribing regulations to assign the use
that those standards include that the Airspace; Santa Rosa, CA of airspace necessary to ensure the
issuers take steps to ‘‘reduce the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
occurrence of, and costs from, fraud in AGENCY: Federal Aviation airspace. This regulation is within the
relation to electronic debit Administration (FAA), DOT. scope of that authority as it amends
transactions,’’ including ‘‘development ACTION: Final rule, technical Class D and Class E airspace at Santa
and implementation of cost-effective amendment. Rosa, CA.
fraud prevention technology.’’ Section
920(a)(5)(A)(i), (A)(ii)(II) (emphasis SUMMARY: This action amends Class D History
supplied). The use of the general phrase airspace and Class E airspace designated The FAAs Aeronautical Information
‘‘fraud in relation to electronic debit as an extension at Santa Rosa, CA, by Services identified that the airport
transactions’’ and the specific reference updating the geographic coordinates of reference point (ARP) was not
to developing fraud prevention Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County coincidental with the FAA’s
technology suggest a Congressional Airport to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database. This action
intent to use the fraud prevention database. This action does not involve a makes these corrections. Accordingly,
adjustment to encourage issuers to change in the dimensions or operating since this action merely adjusts the
develop and adopt programmatic requirements of the airspace. geographic coordinates of the airport,
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
improvements to address fraud outside DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, October 15, notice and public procedure under
of the context of particular transactions 2015. The Director of the Federal 553(b) are unnecessary.
that incur costs for authorization, Register approves this incorporation by Class D and E airspace designations
clearance, or settlement. The types of reference action under title 1, Code of are published in paragraphs 5000 and
Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to 6004, respectively, of FAA Order
14 77 FR at 46,264. the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Aug 13, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR1.SGM 14AUR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_48841/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-23 10:58:42
Document Modified: 2018-02-23 10:58:42
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Clarification. | |
| Dates | Effective August 14, 2015. | |
| Contact | Stephanie Martin, Associate General Counsel (202-452-3198), or Clinton Chen, Attorney (202-452-3952), Legal Division; for users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact (202-263-4869); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 48684 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR