[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77317-77321]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26402]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90503; File No. SR-MRX-2020-18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its
Pricing Schedule at Options 7 for Orders Entered Into the Exchange's
Price Improvement Mechanism

November 24, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 13, 2020, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II 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 Pricing Schedule at Options 7 in
connection with the pricing for orders

entered into the Exchange's Price Improvement Mechanism (``PIM'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ PIM is a process by which an Electronic Access Member
(``EAM'') can provide price improvement opportunities for a
transaction wherein the EAM seeks to facilitate an order it
represents as agent, and/or a transaction wherein the EAM solicited
interest to execute against an order it represents as agent. See
Options 3, Section 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/mrx/rules, 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
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
Pricing Schedule at Options 7 in connection with the pricing for orders
entered into the Exchange's PIM.
    Today for both regular and complex PIM orders, the Exchange pays a
PIM break-up rebate to an originating Priority Customer \4\ PIM order
that executes with a response (order or quote), other than the PIM
contra-side order, of $0.40 per contract in Penny Symbols and $1.00 per
contract in Non-Penny Symbols.\5\ The Exchange also offers a higher PIM
break-up rebate in note 3 of Options 7, Section 3.A for Members that
meet certain cumulative volume requirements. In particular, Members
that execute an average daily volume (``ADV'') of 10,000 PIM
originating contracts or greater within a month are currently eligible
to receive a rebate of (i) $0.45 per contract in Penny Symbols (in lieu
of $0.40 per contract) for complex PIM orders only, and (ii) $1.05 per
contract in Non-Penny Symbols (in lieu of $1.00 per contract) for both
regular and complex PIM orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A ``Priority Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s), as defined in Nasdaq MRX Options 1,
Section 1(a)(36).
    \5\ Break-up rebates apply only to regular PIM orders of 500 or
fewer contracts and to complex PIM orders where the largest leg is
500 or fewer contracts. See Options 7, Section 3.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes a number of changes to the break-up
rebate structure. First, the Exchange proposes to lower the base
rebates to $0.25 in Penny Symbols and $0.60 per contract in Non-Penny
Symbols. Second, the Exchange proposes to replace the existing note 3
incentive described above with a new program. As amended, note 3 of
Options 7, Section 3.A would provide:
    Break-up Rebates are provided for an originating Priority Customer
PIM Order that executes with any response (order or quote) other than
the PIM contra-side order. Members that are not in an Affiliated Member
or Affiliated Entity relationship and that execute 0.05% or greater of
Customer Total Consolidated Volume in non-PIM Priority Customer
contracts within a month will receive an additional rebate of: (i)
$0.20 per contract in Penny Symbols for Complex PIM Orders only, (ii)
$0.15 per contract in Penny Symbols for Regular PIM Orders only, and
(iii) $0.45 per contract in Non-Penny Symbols for both Regular and
Complex PIM Orders. Alternatively, Affiliated Members or Affiliated
Entities will be eligible to receive the rebates in this note 3 without
any additional volume requirements. The Exchange will provide the
rebate to the OFP arm of an Affiliated Member relationship, or the
Appointed OFP arm of an Affiliated Entity relationship.
    The new program replaces the current cumulative ADV threshold with
a total industry percentage threshold, specifically a Customer Total
Consolidated Volume \6\ percentage threshold. The Exchange notes that
the proposed percentage threshold of 0.05% or greater of Customer Total
Consolidated Volume is comparable in terms of requisite volume to the
existing ADV threshold of 10,000 or greater contracts. The Exchange is
proposing to replace the current cumulative volume thresholds with
total industry volume percentages to align with increasing Member
activity on MRX over time. The Exchange notes that total industry
percentage thresholds are established concepts within its Pricing
Schedule.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Customer Total Consolidated Volume means the total volume
cleared at The Options Clearing Corporation in the Customer range in
equity and ETF options in that month. See Options 7, Section 3,
Table 3.
    \7\ Specifically, the qualifying tier thresholds for the
Exchange's maker/taker pricing are based on Customer Total
Consolidated Volume percentages. See Options 7, Section 3, Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also modifying this qualification by requiring that
Members execute 0.05% or greater of Customer Total Consolidated Volume
in non-PIM Priority Customer contracts (instead of PIM originating
contracts, as currently required). The Exchange believes this change
will incentivize Members to bring a wider range of order flow for
execution on the Exchange, which activity may result in tighter spreads
making the Exchange a more attractive trading venue to the benefit of
all market participants. As discussed in the following paragraph, this
volume qualification only applies to Members that are not in affiliated
relationships.
    The new program will also offer a new, alternative basis, to
qualify for the higher break-up rebates in amended note 3.
Specifically, as proposed, Members may enter into certain affiliated
relationships (i.e., Affiliated Members \8\ or Affiliated Entities \9\)
to qualify for the higher break-up rebates. The Exchange recently filed
to permit Members to enter into Affiliated Entities in order to
aggregate volume and qualify for certain pricing incentives, provided
they are not Affiliated Members.\10\ Accordingly, the proposed changes
are intended to enhance participation in the Exchange's new Affiliated
Entity program in order to encourage additional order flow to MRX. As
described above, the rebates in note 3 will be provided to the OFP \11\
arm of the Affiliated Member relationship, or

the Appointed OFP in the Affiliated Entity relationship, without
additional volume requirements. The Exchange believes that this will
encourage Members who are not Affiliated Members to enter into
Affiliated Entity relationships and submit any amount of Priority
Customer PIM order flow in order to receive the note 3 rebates. The
Exchange will also make clear in note 3 that the 0.05% or greater
Customer Total Consolidated Volume requirement only applies to Members
that are not in an Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ An ``Affiliated Member'' is a Member that shares at least
75% common ownership with a particular Member as reflected on the
Member's Form BD, Schedule A. See Options 7, Section 1(c).
    \9\ An ``Affiliated Entity'' is a relationship between an
Appointed Market Maker and an Appointed OFP for purposes of
qualifying for certain pricing specified in the Pricing Schedule.
Market Makers and OFPs are required to send an email to the Exchange
to appoint their counterpart, at least 3 business days prior to the
last day of the month to qualify for the next month. The Exchange
will acknowledge receipt of the emails and specify the date the
Affiliated Entity is eligible for applicable pricing, as specified
in the Pricing Schedule. Each Affiliated Entity relationship will
commence on the 1st of a month and may not be terminated prior to
the end of any month. An Affiliated Entity relationship will
terminate after a one (1) year period, unless either party
terminates earlier in writing by sending an email to the Exchange at
least 3 business days prior to the last day of the month to
terminate for the next month. Affiliated Entity relationships must
be renewed annually by each party sending an email to the Exchange.
Affiliated Members may not qualify as a counterparty comprising an
Affiliated Entity. Each Member may qualify for only one (1)
Affiliated Entity relationship at any given time. See Options 7,
Section 1(c).
    \10\ See SR-MRX-2020-21(not yet published).
    \11\ An ``OFP'' is any Member, other than a Market Maker, that
submits orders, as agent or principal, to the Exchange. See Options
7, Section 1(c)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ 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, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78 f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposed changes to its Pricing Schedule are
reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is
subject to significant competitive forces in the market for options
securities transaction services that constrain its pricing
determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive
has long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (DC Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
options security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
sixteen options exchanges to which market participants may direct their
order flow. Within this environment, market participants can freely and
often do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues
in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such,
the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to
increase its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
    In this context, the Exchange believes that its proposal for the
PIM break-up rebates is reasonable. While the Exchange is proposing to
lower the base break-up rebates to $0.25 in Penny Symbols and $0.60 per
contract in Non-Penny Symbols, the Exchange believes that market
participants will continue to be incentivized to send Priority Customer
order flow to PIM to receive the base break-up rebate. Furthermore, the
Exchange notes the proposed break-up rebates remain in line with
similar rebates provided at other exchanges.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See MIAX Options (``MIAX'') Fee Schedule, Sections 1(a)(v)
and (vi), which set forth MIAX Price Improvement Mechanism
(``PRIME'') and MIAX Complex PRIME (``cPRIME'') pricing. MIAX PRIME
and cPRIME Break-up Credits are $0.25 per contract (Penny Classes)
and $0.60 per contract (Non-Penny Classes). See also Cboe Exchange,
Inc. (``Cboe'') Fee Schedule, Break-Up Credits, which provides
Break-Up Credits of $0.25 per contract (Penny Classes) and $0.60 per
contract (Non-Penny Classes) to orders executed in Cboe's Automated
Improvement Mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the amended note 3
incentive providing higher break-up rebates to qualifying Members, as
described above, is reasonable in several respects. Regarding the
change in the volume qualification to replace the current cumulative
ADV threshold with a total industry percentage threshold, the Exchange
notes that this is to align with increasing Member activity on MRX over
time. The Exchange is proposing to base the volume qualification on a
percentage of industry volume in recognition of the fact that the
volume executed by a Member may rise or fall with industry volume. A
percentage of industry volume calculation allows the note 3
qualification to be calibrated to current market volumes rather than
requiring a static amount of volume regardless of market conditions.
While the amount of volume required by the proposed qualification in
note 3 may change in any given month due to increases or decreases in
industry volume, the Exchange believes that the proposed threshold
requirement is set at an appropriate level. As discussed above, the
proposed threshold of 0.05% Customer Total Consolidated Volume is
comparable to the existing ADV threshold of 10,000 contracts, so the
Exchange anticipates minimal impact to Members as a result of replacing
the current cumulative volume threshold with the new total industry
percentage threshold. Furthermore, as noted above, total industry
percentage thresholds are established concepts within its Pricing
Schedule.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Specifically, the qualifying tier thresholds for the
Exchange's maker/taker pricing are based on Customer Total
Consolidated Volume percentages. See Options 7, Section 3, Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that modifying this qualification in
note 3 to require Members that are not in an Affiliated Member or
Affiliated Entity relationship to execute 0.05% or greater of Customer
Total Consolidated Volume in non-PIM Priority Customer contracts
(instead of PIM originating contracts, as currently required) is
reasonable because this change will incentivize Members to bring a
wider range of order flow for execution on the Exchange. This could
ultimately result in increased trading opportunities, tighter spreads
and greater price discovery, making the Exchange a more attractive
trading venue to the benefit of all market participants.
    Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the new, alternative basis,
to qualify for the higher break-up rebates in amended note 3 is
reasonable. In particular, the Exchange will permit Affiliated Members
or Affiliated Entities to send any amount of Priority Customer PIM
volume for purposes of qualifying for higher break-up rebates. The
Exchange believes that this will attract additional Priority Customer
PIM order flow to the Exchange and will fortify participation in the
Exchange's Affiliated Entity program, as noted above. Permitting
Members to enter into an Affiliated Entity relationship for purposes of
qualifying the OFP arm of an Affiliated Member relationship, or the
Appointed OFP of an Affiliated Entity relationship, for the higher
break-up rebates in amended note 3 may also

encourage the counterparties that comprise the Affiliated Members or
Affiliated Entities to incentivize each other to attract and seek to
execute more Priority Customer volume in PIM. In turn, market
participants would benefit from the increased liquidity with which to
interact and potentially tighter spreads on orders. Overall,
incentivizing market participants with increased opportunities to earn
higher break-up rebates may increase the quality of the liquidity
available on MRX.
    The Exchange believes that the PIM break-up rebate changes, as
proposed, are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
proposed rebates will apply equally to all Priority Customer PIM
originating orders that execute against PIM responses. The Exchange's
proposal to permit Affiliated Members or Affiliated Entities to send
any amount of Priority Customer PIM volume for purposes of qualifying
the OFP arm or the Appointed OFP for the higher break-up rebates in
note 3 is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all Members
who are not Affiliated Members may elect to become an Affiliated
Entity. While Priority Customer PIM orders will continue to receive the
break-up rebate, as opposed to other market participant orders, the
Exchange believes that this application of the rebate is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because Priority Customer order flow
enhances liquidity on the Exchange. This, in turn, provides more
trading opportunities and attracts other market participants, thus
facilitating tighter spreads, increased order flow and trading
opportunities to the benefit of all market participants. Moreover, the
Exchange has historically provided lower pricing or other incentives to
Priority Customers in order to attract such order flow to MRX.

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.
    In terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange does not believe
that its proposal will place any category of Exchange market
participant at a competitive disadvantage. The proposed changes to the
Exchange's PIM break-up rebate program are designed to incentivize
market participants to direct PIM order flow to the Exchange. While PIM
break-up rebates apply directly to Priority Customer orders, the
Exchange believes that the proposed changes benefit all market
participants by fortifying and encouraging additional liquidity and
order flow to MRX. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that encouraging
additional activity by Affiliated Members and Affiliated Entities in
the manner discussed above likewise benefits all market participants as
it contributes to the Exchange's depth of book as well as to the top of
book liquidity. To the extent that the proposal attracts more
liquidity, this increased order flow would continue to make the
Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution and all of the
Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved market
quality. Enhanced market quality and increased transaction volume that
results from the anticipated increase in order flow directed to the
Exchange would benefit all market participants and improve competition
on the Exchange.
    In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at
other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
options exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own
fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust
their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to
which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition
is extremely limited.
    Moreover, as noted above, price competition between exchanges is
fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges
in reaction to fee and rebate changes. In sum, if the changes proposed
herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the
Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of
Members or competing order execution venues to maintain their
competitive standing in the financial markets.

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 foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \18\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \19\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or
appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of
investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MRX-2020-18 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2020-18. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 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. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MRX-
2020-18 and should be submitted on or before December 22, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26402 Filed 11-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13266]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5471]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Airport Noise
Compatibility Planning

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 respondents are those airport operators voluntarily
submitting noise exposure maps and noise compatibility programs to the
FAA for review and approval.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 9, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0517.
    Title: Airport Noise Compatibility Planning.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The voluntarily submitted information from the current
CFR part 150 collection, e.g., airport noise exposure maps and airport
noise compatibility programs, or their revisions, is used by the FAA to
conduct reviews of the submissions to determine if an airport sponsor's
noise compatibility program is eligible for Federal grant funds. If
airport operators did not voluntarily submit noise exposure maps and
noise compatibility programs for FAA review and approval, the airport
operator would not be eligible for the set aside of discretionary grant
funds.
    Respondents: Approximately 15 airport operators.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 3882.6 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 58,240 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla
Scott, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    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. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 3, 2011.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2011-5471 Filed 3-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P