[Federal Register: July 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 129)]
[Notices]
[Page 32675-32678]
[DOCID:fr08jy09-123]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60202; File No. SR-Phlx-2009-54)]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. Relating to Fees for the Top of PHLX
Options (``TOPO'') Data Feed

June 30, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on June 30, 2009, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule by establishing
subscriber fees for a direct data product related to the trading of
standardized options on the Exchange's enhanced electronic trading
platform for options, Phlx XL II.\3\ Specifically, the Exchange is
proposing to adopt fees for the Top of Phlx Options (``TOPO''), a
direct data feed product that features the Exchange's best bid and
offer position, with aggregate size and last sale information on the
Phlx XL II system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May 28,
2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLX/
Filings/, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    On June 5, 2009, the Exchange launched the Phlx XL II system, which
is subject to a symbol-by-symbol rollout schedule expected to last up
to 12 weeks. In conjunction with the launch and rollout of the Phlx XL
II system, the Exchange is developing TOPO. TOPO will provide to
subscribers a direct data feed that includes the Exchange's best bid
and offer position, with aggregate size, based on displayable order and
quoting interest on the Phlx XL II system. The data contained in the
TOPO data feed is identical to the data sent to the processor for the
Options Price Regulatory Authority (``OPRA''), and the TOPO and OPRA
data leave the Phlx XL II System at the same time.
    Currently, the Exchange does not make market data products such as
TOPO available. Accordingly, there are no current fees for distribution
or use of these products on the Exchange's fee schedule. In
coordination with the projected completion of the rollout of the Phlx
XL II system, the Exchange proposes to charge monthly fees to
distributors, beginning August 1, 2009, for use of TOPO. The monthly
``Distributor Fee'' charged will depend on whether the distributor is
an ``Internal Distributor'' or an ``External Distributor,'' as defined
below.
    Under the proposal, the Exchange's fee schedule will reflect that a
``distributor'' of NASDAQ OMX PHLX data is any entity that receives a
feed or data file of data directly from NASDAQ OMX PHLX or indirectly
through another entity and then distributes it either internally
(within that entity) or externally (outside that entity), and that all
distributors would be required to execute a NASDAQ OMX PHLX distributor
agreement.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange notes that the proposed definition of
``distributor'' and references to internal and external distribution
are identical to those set forth in NASDAQ Rule 7019(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Internal Distributor

    An Internal Distributor is an organization that subscribes to the
Exchange for the use of TOPO, and is permitted by agreement with the
Exchange to provide TOPO data to internal users (i.e., users within
their

own organization). Internal Distributors would be charged a monthly fee
of $2,000 per organization.

External Distributor

    An External Distributor is an organization that subscribes to the
Exchange for the use of TOPO, and is permitted by agreement with the
Exchange to provide TOPO data to both internal users and to external
users (i.e., users outside of their own organization). External
Distributors will be charged a monthly fee of $2,500 per organization.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general and with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which Phlx operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is also
consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in
that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest; and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers, or to regulate by virtue of
any authority conferred by the Act matters not related to the purposes
of the Act or the administration of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is also
consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \8\ in that it does not
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as set forth in more detail
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to
offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that
this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers,
and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market
data.
    The Commission has recently issued an order firmly establishing
that in reviewing non-core data products such as TOPO, the Commission
will utilize a market-based approach that relies primarily on
competitive forces to determine the terms on which non-core data is
made available to investors.\9\ The Commission adopted a two-part test:

    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57917 [sic] (Dec. 2,
2008) (NetCoalition Order'' resolving File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-21).

    The first is to ask whether the exchange was subject to
significant competitive forces in setting the terms of its proposal
for non-core data, including the level of any fees. If an exchange
was subject to significant competitive forces in setting the terms
of a proposal, the Commission will approve the proposal unless it
determines that there is a substantial countervailing basis to find
that the terms nevertheless fail to meet an applicable requirement
of the Exchange Act or the rules thereunder. If, however, the
exchange was not subject to significant competitive forces in
setting the terms of a proposal for non-core data, the Commission
will require the exchange to provide a substantial basis, other than
competitive forces, in its proposed rule change demonstrating that
the terms of the proposal are equitable, fair, reasonable, and not
unreasonably discriminatory.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. at 48-49.

    This standard begins from the premise that no Commission rule
requires exchanges or market participants either to distribute non-core
data to the public or to display non-core data to investors.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its NetCoalition Order the Commission concluded that ``at least
two broad types of significant competitive forces applied to NYSE Arca
in setting the terms of its Proposal to distribute the ArcaBook data:
(1) NYSE Arca's compelling need to attract order flow from market
participants; and (2) the availability to market participants of
alternatives to purchasing the ArcaBook data. The Commission conducted
an exhaustive 14-page review of these two competitive forces before
concluding that the availability of alternatives, as well as the
compelling need to attract order flow, imposed significant competitive
pressure on the exchange's need to act equitably, fairly, and
reasonably in setting the terms of the fees for its non-core data
product.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 51-65. The Commission then spent an additional 36
pages (65-101) analyzing and refuting comments challenging the
Commission's competition analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The market data provided in TOPO is non-core data that is governed
by the same analysis the Commission set forth in the NetCoalition
Order. As with the NYSE Arca depth-of-book product, no rule requires
Phlx or any other exchange to offer top of book data; nor are vendors
required to purchase or display that data. Additionally, Phlx is
constrained by the same two competitive forces in the options market as
the Commission found are present in the proposal of the International
Securities Exchange, Inc. (``ISE'') to establish fees for a real-time
depth of market data offering, the ISE Depth of Market Data Feed
(``Depth of Market'').\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59949 (May 20,
2009), 74 FR 25593 (May 28, 2009) (SR-ISE-2007-97) (Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to
Market Data Fees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, Phlx has a compelling need to attract order flow from market
participants, just as ISE, in order to maintain its share of trading
volume. This compelling need to attract order flow imposes significant
pressure on Phlx to act reasonably in setting its fees for Phlx market
data, particularly given that the market participants that will pay
such fees often will be the same market participants from whom Phlx
must attract order flow. These market participants include broker-
dealers that control the handling of a large volume of customer and
proprietary order flow. Given the portability of order flow from one
exchange to another, any exchange that sought to charge unreasonably
high data fees would risk alienating many of the same customers on
whose orders it depends for competitive survival.
    As an illustration of the intensity of the competition for options
order flow among the seven U.S. options exchanges, the ISE and Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'') each enjoy close to thirty
percent market share of volume, followed by Phlx at close to twenty
percent market share, followed by four other exchanges with meaningful
market share.
    Phlx currently trades options on 7 proprietary index products that
are not traded on any other exchange. These 7 options currently
represent less than 0.04% of Phlx's total contract volume. Given the
small percentage of Phlx's total contract volume represented by these 7
products, the Exchange believes that the inclusion of data on these
products in the TOPO product should not confer market power on Phlx to
compel market participants to purchase the entire Phlx data feed. The
Exchange therefore believes that the inclusion of top-of-book data for
these products in Phlx's TOPO product does not undermine the fact that
Phlx is subject

to significant competitive forces in setting the terms of its proposal.
    Second, Phlx is constrained in pricing TOPO by the availability to
market participants of alternatives to purchasing TOPO. Phlx must
consider the extent to which market participants would choose one or
more alternatives instead of purchasing the exchange's data. For
example, although the TOPO data feed is separate from the core data
feed made available by OPRA, all the information available in TOPO is
included in the core data feed. The core OPRA data is widely
distributed and relatively inexpensive, thus constraining Phlx's
ability to price TOPO. Additionally, both ISE and CBOE are potential
competitors because each exchange enjoys greater market share and thus
the ability to offer a top-of-book product that would compete favorably
with TOPO.
    If the Commission finds that Phlx is subject to significant
competitive forces in setting the terms of TOPO pricing, then the
Commission should approve the proposal in the absence of a substantial
countervailing basis to find that its terms nevertheless fail to meet
an applicable requirement of the Act or the rules thereunder. Phlx
submits that no such countervailing basis exists.
    To the contrary, Phlx's considerations in setting the fees for TOPO
are virtually identical to those the Commission approved in the
NetCoaltion Order. First, the proposed fees for TOPO are lower for
Internal Distributors than for External Distributors. Because Internal
Distributors are by definition more limited in the scope of their
distribution of TOPO data than External Distributors, it is reasonable
to expect that Internal Distributors will provide TOPO data to a
smaller number of internal subscribers. Conversely, External
Distributors can reasonably be expected to distribute the TOPO data to
a higher number of subscribers because they do not have the same
limitation. Accordingly, the Exchange will charge a higher fee to
External Distributors than to Internal Distributors. The fees therefore
do not unreasonably discriminate among types of subscribers, such as by
favoring participants in the Phlx market or penalizing participants in
other markets. Second, Phlx projects that the total revenues generated
by the TOPO fee initially will amount to less than the $8 million per
year that NYSE Arca projected would be generated by its ArcaBook
data.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. at 101-104. [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the market for
options orders and executions is already highly competitive and Phlx's
proposal is itself pro-competitive in several ways. First, the TOPO
data feed offers a competitive, lower-priced alternative to the
consolidated data OPRA feed for users and situations where consolidated
data is unnecessary. Second, the Phlx believes that offering the TOPO
data feed will help attract new users and new order flow to the Phlx
market, thereby improving Phlx's ability to compete in the market for
options order flow and executions.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange requests accelerated approval in order to expedite the
availability of TOPO, which should promote consistency and transparency
in the Exchange's markets.
    The Exchange believes that accelerated approval should provide
customers, and broker-dealers that make routing decisions on behalf of
customers, with greater transparency in the Phlx markets on an
expedited basis. Once a full 21-day comment period has taken place, the
Exchange believes (in the absence of any comments that would require a
response) that it is appropriate for the Commission to accelerate the
operative date for TOPO fees because the proposed rule change is in the
public interest and supports the protection of investors by allowing
data distributors to make additional market data available to investors
that choose to purchase it. Widespread availability of Phlx options
data benefits average investors by improving access to real-time market
data that investors can use to make better-informed trading decisions.
Additionally, to the extent users can substitute the lower-priced TOPO
data for the higher-priced consolidated data feed, those users will
have the opportunity to pass the savings on to investors in the form of
lower overall trading costs.
    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) by order approve
such proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings to determine
whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2009-54 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2009-54. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make

available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Phlx-2009-54 and should be submitted on or before July 29, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15997 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 160 (Friday, August 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49851-49852]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20257]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Nineteenth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 216, Aeronautical
Systems Security (Joint Meeting With EUROCAE WG-72)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 216, Aeronautical
Systems Security (Joint Meeting with EUROCAE WG-72).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
nineteenth meeting of RTCA Special Committee 216, Aeronautical Systems
Security (Joint Meeting with EUROCAE WG-72).

DATES: The meeting will be held September 11-14, 2012, from 9 a.m.-5
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at EASA, Ottoplatz 1, 50679 Koln,
Germany. Contact Cyrille Rosay for information at 49-221-899-90-4045 or
fax: 49-221-899-90-4545, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 216. The agenda will
include the following:

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Plenary

09:00-11:30

 Welcome
 Introduction, Logistics
 Eurocae Context Presentation
 Joint Plenary:
     Scope and purpose of this meeting with focus on ED-202A/
DO-326A and ED-204
     Open Consultation/FRAC requirements & expectations
     Coordination between drafting

groups

ED-201

11h30 to 17h00: Continuation of ED-201 work.

ED-202A/ED-203

11h30 to 17h00: Addressing resolution of Blocking Points. Interaction
with ED-201/ED-204 drafting groups, where necessary:
     Segregation of & Interaction Between Security & Safety
Processes
     Integration of AWSP with PRA principles
     Definition, Terminology and Use of SL/SAL/SEL/* * *
     Definition of ``Security Environment'' and how to treat
its evolutionary nature and resulting consequences
     Scope of the Documents: Type Certificate, STC and Change
to Type Design
     Consistency of (Table of) Contents between ED-202 & ED-203

ED-204

11h30 to 17h00: Continuation of ED-204 work. Interaction with ED-202
drafting group, where necessary.

September 12th & 13th

ED-202A/ED-203

09h00 to 17h00: Addressing resolution of Blocking Points. Interaction
with ED-201/ED-204 drafting groups, where necessary.

ED-204

09h00 to 17h00: Continuation of ED-204 work. Interaction with ED-202
drafting group.

September 14th

Plenary

09h00 to 15h00: Joint Plenary:

 Achievements of this meeting with focus on ED-202A/DO-326A and
ED-204
 Open items & Planning of activities
 Publication Schedule/Options for Open Consultation/FRAC
 Position of Regulatory Authorities: Go Ahead?

15:00 Wrap-Up, Adjourn.

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 10, 2012.
David Sicard,
Manager, Business Operations Branch, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-20257 Filed 8-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 189 (Monday, October 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54784-54785]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21476]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. 2120-0076]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Renewal of
AVIATOR (Automated Vacancy Information Access Tool for Online Referral)
Customer Satisfaction Survey

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on February 2, 2021. Note, the publication is referenced
under ``OMB-0076'' in error; it should have indicated ``OMB-2120-
0699''. The collection involves on-line, electronic applicant
(customer) answers to standard survey questions. The questions are
presented as multiple-choice selections and free-form text areas where
applicants can choose their desired answer and, if they wish, add
additional comments. The information to be collected will be used to
and is necessary to gage the level of user satisfaction with the
AVIATOR (Automated Vacancy Information Access Tool for Online Referral)
system. Additionally, the surveys are used to obtain benchmarking and
feedback to ensure quality.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by October 28, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni Main-Valentin by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0699.
    Title: AVIATOR (Automated Vacancy Information Access Tool for
Online Referral) Customer Satisfaction Survey.
    Form Numbers: N/A (electronic).
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on February 2, 2021 (86 FR 7919). The Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) Section 2(b)(3) requires
agencies to ``improve Federal program effectiveness and public
accountability by promoting a new focus on results, service quality,
and customer satisfaction''. In addition, as stated in the White House
``Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies''
regarding Executive Order No. 12862, ``the actions the order
prescribes, such as surveying customers, surveying employees, and
benchmarking, shall be continuing agency activities''. This collection
supports the Department of Transportation (DOT) strategic goal of
Organizational Excellence.
    In compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA),
all of our data collection will be 100% electronic using an online
form; Applicants will be asked to complete the survey just before they
exit the system. The AVIATOR Customer Satisfaction Survey is designed
to identify potential problems with FAA's automated staffing solutions
as well as to evaluate customer satisfaction with the on-line
application process. The information is not gathered by any other
collection. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to improve the
AVIATOR system's overall performance and customer satisfaction without
utilizing the survey as a performance measurement tool.
    Respondents: 138,953 U.S. citizens, identified as applicants (from
January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019) applying for employment with the
Federal Aviation Administration, had the opportunity to complete a
survey. 9% (13,019) of applicants completed surveys during this time
frame.
    Frequency: On occasion/as interested.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 3 minutes per response.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 13,019 respondents x 0.05 (3/60) =
651 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 28, 2021.
Alpha O. Woodson-Smith,
Computer Scientist, Program Manager, Finance and Management (AFN),
Information and Technology Services (AIT), Enterprise Program
Management Service (AEM-320).
[FR Doc. 2021-21476 Filed 10-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P