[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58519-58520]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24168]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0002]

Risk Communication Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Risk Communication Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on November 17, 2011, from
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and November 18, 2011, from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building
31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD
20993-0002. Information regarding special accommodations due to a
disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the heading
``Resources for You,'' click on ``Public Meetings at the FDA White Oak
Campus.'' Please note that visitors to the White Oak Campus must enter
through Building 1.
    Contact Person: Lee L. Zwanziger, Office of Planning, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3278, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-
741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), and follow the
prompts to the desired center or product area. Please call the
Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A notice
in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site and call the appropriate
advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On November 17, 2011, the committee will discuss results of
a literature review (as required in the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148) about communicating quantitative
risk and benefit information in prescription drug promotional labeling
and print advertising, and will also receive a briefing on activities
in FDA's Office of Special Health Issues. On November 18, 2011, the
committee will discuss implications, for strategic communication, of
recent theoretical developments on information use in decisionmaking.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
November 9, 2011. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. on November 17, 2011, and 10:30
a.m. and 11:30 a.m. on November 18, 2011. Those individuals interested
in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person
and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before November 3, 2011. Time allotted
for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing
session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding
their request to speak by November 4, 2011. Interested persons can also
log on to

https://collaboration.fda.gov/rcac/ to hear and see the proceedings.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Lee L. Zwanziger at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: September 14, 2011.
 Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-24168 Filed 9-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: July 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 42555]
[DOCID:fr22jy08-28]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-431-000; PF08-6-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Application

July 11, 2008.
    Take notice that on June 24, 2008, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia), 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE., Charleston, West
Virginia 25314, filed in the above referenced docket an application
pursuant to section 7(c) and 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), for an
order granting a certificate of public convenience to construct, own,
and operate natural gas storage facilities in Ohio to provide storage
services at market-based rates (Ohio Storage Expansion Project), all as
more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for
review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed
on the Commission's Web site web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to
Fredric J. George, Lead Counsel, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation,
P.O. Box 1273, Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273; telephone: 304-
357-2359; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    On December 27, 2007, the Commission staff granted Columbia's
request to utilize the Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF08-
6-000 to staff activities involved the Ohio Storage Expansion Project.
Now as of the filing the June 24, 2008 application, the Pre-Filing
Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this
proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP08-431-000, as noted in
the caption of this Notice.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: August 1, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-16695 Filed 7-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 160 (Monday, August 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56895-56899]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17859]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98139; File No. SR-BOX-2023-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Update and
Amend IM-7240-1 Regarding Complex Order and Multi-Leg Price Protections

August 15, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 7, 2023, BOX Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to update and amend IM-7240-1 regarding
Complex Order \5\ and Multi-Leg price protections. The text of the
proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the
Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the
Exchange's internet website at https://rules.boxexchange.com/rulefilings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Complex Order'' means any order involving the
simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or more different options
series in the same underlying security, for the same account, in a
ratio that is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less
than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) and for the purpose of
executing a particular investment strategy. See BOX Rule 7240(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
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 twofold: first, to amend
IM-7240-1(a) to include Multi-Leg Orders; \6\ and second, to make
certain price protections voluntary for Complex Qualified Open Outcry
(``QOO'') Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders. In May 2018, BOX adopted
protections for Complex Orders.\7\ Multi-leg QOO Orders were added to
the Trading Floor in February of 2019.\8\ At that time, the Complex
Order protections in IM-7240-1(a) were designed to apply to multi-leg
QOO Orders, however, IM-7240-1(a) was not updated accordingly. The
Exchange now proposes to update IM-7240-1 to explicitly include multi-
leg QOO Orders in IM-7240-1(a) to accurately describe system
functionality. The Exchange notes that IM-7240-1 includes both the
debit/credit check and maximum price protections. At present, debit/
credit check in IM-7240-1(a) applies to both Complex Orders and Multi-
Leg Orders and maximum price in IM-7240-1(b) applies to Complex Orders
but not to Multi-Leg Orders because maximum price only applies to true
butterfly spreads, vertical spreads, and box spreads which have ratios
that are equal to or greater than one-to-three and less than or equal
to three-to-one and by definition are always Complex Orders.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``Multi-Leg Order'' means any order involving the
simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or more different options
series in the same underlying security, for the same account, and
for the purpose of executing a particular investment strategy in a
ratio that is less than one-to-three (.333) or greater than three-
to-one (3.00). See BOX Rule 7240(a)(10).
    \7\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 83163 (May 3,
2018), 83 FR 21320 (May 9, 2018) (SR-BOX-2018-13) (Notice of
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Adopt Price
Protections for Complex Orders).
    \8\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 85052 (February
5, 2019), 84 FR 3265 (February 11, 2019) (SR-BOX-2019-01) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to
Clarify That Multi-leg Qualified Open Outcry Orders are Permitted on
the BOX Trading Floor).
    \9\ A true butterfly spread has a ratio of two-to-one while
vertical spreads and box spreads have a leg ratio of one-to-one. As
noted above, a Complex Order means any order involving the
simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or more different options
series in the same underlying security, for the same account, in a
ratio that is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less
than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) and for the purpose of
executing a particular investment strategy. See BOX Rule 7240(a)(7).
Further, a Multi-Leg Order means any order involving the
simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or more different options
series in the same underlying security, for the same account, and
for the purpose of executing a particular investment strategy, in a
ratio that is less than one-to-three (.333) or greater than three-
to-one (3.00). See BOX Rule 7240(a)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As background, BOX implemented a debit/credit check which helps
prevent the execution of Complex Orders at erroneous prices.\10\
Specifically, under the debit/credit check, the system will reject a
Complex Limit Order for a credit strategy with a net debit price or a
Complex Limit Order for a debit strategy with a net credit price. The
debit/credit check mechanism is designed to value strategies using
principles that are based on theoretical models used to value options.
Such models take into account variables such as current market price,
strike price, and time to expiration. All else equal, longer-dated
options are more valuable because of their greater time to expiration.
Additionally, holding everything constant, including expiration date, a
put option with a higher strike price will be more valuable than a put
option with a lower strike price because the higher strike price allows
the holder to sell the underlying security at a higher price.
Conversely, a call option with a lower strike price is more expensive
than a call option with a higher strike price because the lower strike
price allows the holder to buy the underlying security at a lower
price. Taking these principles into account, BOX designed the debit/
credit check as a way to identify strategies as credit or debit and
only accept appropriate prices based on that determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See BOX IM-7240-1(a) (Debit/Credit Check).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the debit/credit check, the system will also
calculate a maximum price for true butterfly spreads, vertical spreads,
and box spreads. After calculating the maximum price, the system will
reject a Complex Limit Order that is a true butterfly spread, vertical
spread, or a box spread if the absolute value of the Complex Order's
limit price is greater than the maximum price. For a Complex Market
Order that is a true butterfly spread, vertical spread, or a box
spread, the system will reject the Complex Market Order if the absolute
value of the execution price is greater than the maximum price. The
maximum price value is calculated by adding a price buffer to the
absolute value of a true butterfly spread, vertical spread, or box
spread.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See BOX IM-7240-1(b) (Maximum Price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the principals [sic] drawn from theoretical
models used to value options do not take into account bid to ask
spreads and other factors that may influence the

prices at which Participants \12\ trade options. For example,
Participants may need to close positions to reduce risk or to reduce
margin requirements and, in such cases, may be less sensitive to prices
of individual options. Further, Participants may believe that market
conditions warrant trades that would otherwise be rejected by BOX. The
Exchange believes that Participants make this determination based on
their own theoretical models, positions, and evaluation of market
conditions. As described further below, the Exchange's proposal is
designed to allow Participants to make this determination on a per
order basis based on their internal evaluations of relevant factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See BOX Rule 100(a)(42).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend IM-7240-1(a) to explicitly
include Multi-Leg Orders and to make the debit/credit check voluntary
for Complex QOO Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders and [sic] maximum price
in IM-7240-1(b) voluntary for Complex QOO Orders on the BOX Trading
Floor.\13\ Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to clarify system
functionality by explicitly including Multi-Leg Orders within the
debit/credit check, and to add an exception whereby both Complex QOO
Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders may be excluded from the debit/credit
check on a per order basis. Additionally, the Exchange is proposing to
add an exception to maximum price to exclude Complex QOO Orders on a
per order basis. The Exchange notes that even when the debit/credit
check and maximum price are not applied to an order, Floor Brokers \14\
will evaluate the price of an order based on then-existing market
conditions prior to submitting the order to the Trading Host for
execution. The debit/credit check will apply to Complex QOO Orders and
multi-leg QOO Orders and maximum price will apply to Complex QOO Orders
by default unless Participants elect otherwise on a per order basis.
Specifically, when submitting an order, there is an optional tag to
disable the debit/credit check and maximum price, if the tag is not
populated then the debit/credit check and maximum price will apply by
default. Although Participants who voluntarily choose not to apply the
debit/credit check and maximum price do not have the benefit of such
protections, there is still an opportunity for Floor Brokers to detect
any errors resulting in minimal risk of execution at an erroneous
price. Additionally, the Exchange notes that Complex QOO Orders will
still be executed at a price that is equal to or better than the BOX
BBO for each component series and executed at a price that is equal to
or better than the Extended cNBBO \15\ for the Complex Order Strategy
and that each component series of a multi-leg QOO Order must be
executed at a price that is equal to or better than the NBBO for that
series subject to the exceptions of Rule 15010(b).\16\ The Exchange
notes that the NBBO aspect of the Complex QOO Order filter may be
disabled on an order by order basis by a Floor Broker executing Complex
QOO Orders.\17\ Lastly, the Exchange notes that Participants have
expressed that the current application of these protections is too
restrictive and prevents executions that would be allowed to execute on
competing exchanges.\18\ The Exchange believes that other exchanges do
not apply similar protections on their trading floors.\19\ As such,
Participants have requested this flexibility for their Complex QOO
Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders because of instances when a Participant
order was rejected on BOX due to debit/credit check or maximum price,
the Participant still desires to execute the order, and sends the order
to another exchange where such orders are allowed to execute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange notes that the price protections discussed
herein cannot be waived for electronic orders.
    \14\ See BOX Rule 7540.
    \15\ The term ``Extended cNBBO'' means the maximum permissible
net bid and offer execution price for a Complex Order Strategy. See
BOX Rule 7240(a)(5).
    \16\ See BOX Rules 7240(b)(3)(iii) and 7600(c).
    \17\ See BOX Rule 7240(b)(3)(iii).
    \18\ See NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') Rule 6.91P-O (providing
Complex Strategy Protections for Electronic Complex Orders but not
for open outcry orders) and Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'') Rule
5.34(b)(3) and Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 80439 (April
12, 2017), 82 FR 18320 (April 18, 2017) (SR-CBOE-2017-031)
(providing that debit/credit price reasonability checks do not apply
to orders routed through its PAR workstation and order management
terminal).
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to remove the word ``regular'' in IM-
7240-1(a)(5) and IM-7240-1(b)(5). The Exchange believes the use of the
word may cause confusion and is unnecessary, and, as such, believes
that removing it will provide clarity within the rule text.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\20\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in 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. In particular, amending IM-7240-1(a) to include Multi-
Leg Orders aligns the Exchange's rules with current system
functionality and accurately describes the application of the
protections in IM-7240-1(a). The Exchange believes that codifying the
inclusion of Multi-Leg Orders in IM-7240-1(a) will ensure the rulebook
accurately reflects the operation of the Exchange's rules and,
therefore, the proposed rule change reduces potential investor or
market participant confusion. Additionally, this amendment is designed
to provide Participants with greater certainty about how Complex Order
and Multi-Leg Order price protections are applied to their orders.
Further, the Exchange believes applying the protections in IM-72401(a)
to Multi-Leg Orders helps prevent Multi-Leg Orders from executing at
erroneous prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 5 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes further that allowing the debit/credit check
to be voluntary for Complex QOO Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders and
maximum price to be voluntary for Complex QOO Orders will provide
flexibility for investors to enter Complex QOO Orders and multi-leg QOO
Orders which otherwise may have been rejected due to the debit/credit
check and maximum price even though such orders may have been designed
to meet investors' investment objectives. The election to forgo the
debit/credit check and maximum price will only be allowed on the BOX
Trading Floor because Floor Brokers will have an opportunity to
evaluate the price of an order based on then-existing market conditions
prior to submitting the order to the BOX Trading Host for execution,
resulting in minimal risk of execution at an erroneous price. For
example, Floor Brokers may communicate with their clients to determine
whether an order was intended to be priced as a debit or as a credit or
may be aware of the market conditions influencing a client to price an
order as a debit or as a credit. The debit/credit check will apply to
Complex QOO Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders and maximum price will
apply to Complex QOO Orders by default unless Participants elect
otherwise on a per order basis. The Exchange notes that Complex QOO

Orders will still be executed at a price that is equal to or better
than the BOX BBO for each component series and executed at a price that
is equal to or better than the Extended cNBBO for the Complex Order
Strategy and that each component series of a multi-leg QOO Order must
be executed at a price that is equal to or better than the NBBO for
that series subject to the exceptions of Rule 15010(b).\22\ The
Exchange notes further that the NBBO aspect of the Complex QOO Order
filter may be disabled on an order by order basis by a Floor Broker
executing Complex QOO Orders.\23\ Thus, the Exchange believes that
allowing the debit/credit check to be voluntary only for Complex QOO
Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders and maximum price to be voluntary for
Complex QOO Orders removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general
protects investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 14.
    \23\ See supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that other exchanges do not currently apply
Complex Order price protections similar to the debit/credit check in
open outcry trading.\24\ In particular, the NYSE Arca Rule titled
Electronic Complex Order (``ECO'') Trading provides for ECO Risk
Checks, including Complex Strategy Protections.\25\ The Exchange
believes that NYSE Arca's Complex Strategy Protections only apply to
electronic orders and not to open outcry orders because ECO Risk Checks
specifically apply to a Complex Order that is submitted electronically
to NYSE Arca.\26\ BOX, on the other hand, currently applies the debit/
credit check to Complex QOO Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders and maximum
price to Complex QOO Orders which are executed on the BOX Trading
Floor. The proposal herein will make debit/credit voluntary for Complex
QOO Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders and maximum price voluntary for
Complex QOO Orders such that Participants may choose to execute certain
Complex QOO Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders on the BOX Trading Floor.
The Exchange believes that the proposal herein would allow certain
Complex Orders that are currently allowed in open outcry on NYSE Arca
to also be allowed on the BOX Trading Floor as Complex QOO Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra note 16. [sic]
    \25\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.91P-O(g)(3). ``'Electronic Complex
Order' or `ECO' means a Complex Order . . . that is submitted
electronically to the Exchange.'' See NYSE Arca Rule 6.91P-O(a)(7).
NYSE Arca's Complex Strategy Protections protect participants with
the expectation that an order will receive (or pay) a net premium
but prices the ECO such that the ECO sender will instead pay (or
receive) a net premium. These protections apply to ``all buy'' or
``all sell'' strategies, vertical spreads, and calendar spreads. The
Exchange notes that the debit/credit check in IM-7240-1 includes
``all buy'' and ``all sell'' strategies, Vertical spreads and
Calendar spreads. The Exchange also notes that NYSE Arca Rule 6.91P-
O does not include maximum price protections.
    \26\ NYSE Arca Rule 6.91P-O(a)(7) by its terms is applicable to
electronic orders but not to open outcry orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that CBOE also has debit/credit price
reasonability checks which do not apply to orders routed through its
PAR workstation and order management terminal (``OMT''), which are
subject to manual handling.\27\ As such, CBOE does not apply debit/
credit price reasonability checks to some of the orders subject to
manual handling.\28\ Specifically, a PAR or OMT operator evaluates the
price of an order based on then-existing market conditions prior to
submitting it for electronic execution, thus minimizing the risk of an
erroneous execution and reducing the need for application of additional
price checks. Similarly, the Exchange proposes to make the debit/credit
check voluntary for Complex QOO Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 80439 (April
12, 2017), 82 FR 18320 (April 18, 2017) (SR-CBOE-2017-031).
    \28\ The Exchange notes that CBOE Rule 5.34(b)(4) titled ``Buy
Strategy Parameters'' does not apply to orders auctioned via PAR and
OMT whereas Rule 5.34(b)(5) titled ``Maximum Value Acceptable Price
Range'' does apply to such orders. The Exchange notes further that
the proposed rules determine whether a Complex Order is debit or
credit by using a slightly different process than that employed by
CBOE. Specifically, other than for call and put butterfly spreads,
CBOE will group the legs of a Complex Order into pairs and compare
multiple pairs to determine whether the Complex Order is a credit or
debit while the Exchange creates groups (which may include more than
two legs) based on expiration date. However, the ultimate
determination of whether a Complex Order is a debit or credit is
similar under the different processes. Therefore, the Exchange
believes the debit/credit check is similar to CBOE's Debit/Credit
Price Reasonability Checks. See CBOE Rule 5.34(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes strike a balance
between providing adequate risk controls and flexibility so that
Participants may execute their intended strategies. Specifically, the
Exchange believes that investors will have the added flexibility of
executing Complex QOO Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders at prices of
their choosing while still benefiting from Floor Brokers' handling of
orders. Additionally, the Exchange notes that the proposed changes will
provide Participants with another venue to execute certain Complex
Orders and Multi-Leg Orders that would otherwise be rejected by BOX but
accepted on another exchange.
    Lastly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to remove
the word ``regular'' in IM-7240-1(a)(5) and IM-7240-1(b)(5) will
provide clarity within the rule text and will reduce potential investor
or market participant confusion.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that,
amending IM-7240-1(a) to include Multi-Leg Orders does not impose any
burden on intramarket competition as the change will apply in the same
manner to all Participants. Further, the inclusion of Multi-Leg Orders
in IM-7240-1(a) does not impose a burden on intermarket competition as
the change simply intends to align the Exchange's rules with current
system functionality and accurately describe the application of the
protections in IM-7240-1(a). The Exchange does not believe the proposed
rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition, as the
proposed rule change will apply in the same manner to all Participants.
The Exchange notes that debit/credit check applies to Complex Orders
and Multi-Leg Orders and maximum price to Complex Orders of all
Participants, regardless of account type. Additionally, all
Participants will have the ability to opt out of the debit/credit check
for Complex QOO Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders and maximum price for
Complex QOO Orders on a per order basis. Further, the proposed rule
change will provide all Participants with the ability to execute
certain Complex QOO Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders on BOX that
previously were not allowed. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change does not impose any undue burden on intermarket competition and
may, on the contrary, promote competition, as other exchanges currently
apply similar protections while allowing certain orders to execute in
open outcry on their respective trading floors.\29\ As such, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See supra note 16. [sic]

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

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not (a)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (b) impose any significant burden on competition; and (c)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \30\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\32\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange states
that amending the debit/credit check in IM-7240-1(a) to include Limit
Multi-Leg Orders will help to prevent Limit Multi-Leg Orders from
executing at erroneous prices and help to ensure the accuracy of the
Exchange's rules. The Exchange states that amending IM-7240-1 to make
the debit/credit check voluntary for Complex QOO Orders and Multi-Leg
QOO Orders and to make the maximum price protection voluntary for
Complex QOO Orders will provide BOX Participants with flexibility in
executing their Complex QOO Orders and Multi-Leg QOO Orders. As
discussed above, the Exchange states that Participants that need to
close positions to reduce risk or margin requirements may be less
sensitive to the prices of individual options. The Exchange further
states that Participants may believe, based on their own theoretical
models and positions, that market conditions warrant trades that would
otherwise be rejected by the Exchange. Under the proposal, the debit/
credit check and the maximum price protection will continue to apply by
default unless a Participant elects to forgo on a per order basis.
Because the waiver will available only for orders traded in open
outcry, but not for orders traded electronically, a Floor Broker will
evaluate the price of the Complex QOO or Multi-Leg QOO Order based on
then-existing market conditions prior to submitting the order to the
Trading Host for execution, which the Exchange states will result in
minimal risk of the order executing at an erroneous price. The Exchange
further states that other options exchanges do not apply similar
protections to orders executed on their trading floors, and that
Participants have indicated that the current application of the debit/
credit check and the maximum price protection is too restrictive and
prevents executions that would be permitted on other options
exchanges.\33\ The Exchange states that deleting the word ``regular''
from IM-7240-1(a)(5) and IM-7240-1(b)(5) will help to clarify the
Exchange's rules by removing an unnecessary and potentially confusing
word from the Exchange's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \33\ See notes 24-28, supra, and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The proposal will allow Participants to elect to waive the debit/credit
check for Complex QOO Orders and Multi-Leg QOO Orders, and the maximum
price protection for Complex QOO Orders, on an order-by-order basis. As
discussed above, the Exchange states that Participants seek the
flexibility to execute Complex QOO Orders and Multi-Leg QOO Orders at
prices that the Exchange would otherwise reject. The Commission
believes that the proposal will provide Participants with flexibility
in executing Complex QOO and Multi-Leg QOO Orders that meet their
investment objectives. Under the proposal, the debit/credit check and
the maximum price protection will continue to apply by default, and
Participants will have the ability to waive the protections on a per
order basis. Because the waiver will be available only for Complex QOO
and Multi-Leg QOO Orders traded in open outcry, but not for orders
traded electronically, a Floor Broker will be able to evaluate the
price of the Complex QOO or Multi-Leg QOO Order before submitting the
order to the Trading Host for execution, which the Exchange believes
will minimize the risk of a Complex QOO or Multi-Leg QOO Order
executing at an erroneous price. The proposal to apply the debit/credit
check to Limit Multi-Leg Orders should protect investors by helping to
prevent Limit Multi-Leg Orders from executing at potentially erroneous
prices. The proposal to delete the unnecessary word ``regular'' from
IM-7240-1 should eliminate potential confusion and help to clarify the
Exchange's rules. For these reasons, the Commission designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
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.

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 protected]. Please include
file number SR-BOX-2023-22.

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-BOX-2023-22. 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 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. Do not include personal identifiable
information in submissions; you should submit only information that you
wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold
entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject
to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to file number
SR-BOX-2023-22 and should be submitted on or before September 11, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-17859 Filed 8-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 31, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 53312-53314]
[DOCID:fr31au10-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0417]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Experimental Study of Format Variations in the Brief
Summary of Direct-to-Consumer Print Advertisements

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on the Experimental Study of Format Variations
in the Brief Summary of Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Print Advertisements
(ads). This study is designed to test different ways of presenting
benefit and risk information in the brief summary in DTC print ads.

DATES:  Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by November 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES:  Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information before
submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this
requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Experimental Study of Format Variations in the Brief Summary of Direct-
to-Consumer Print Advertisements--New

    Section 502(n) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
specifies that ads for prescription drugs and biological products must
provide a true statement of information ``in brief summary'' about the
advertised product's ``side effects, contraindications, and
effectiveness.'' The prescription drug advertising regulations (Sec.
202.1(e)(3)(iii) (21 CFR 202.1(e)(3)(iii))) specify that the
information about risks must include each specific side effect and
contraindication from the advertised drug's FDA-approved labeling,
including the Warnings, Precautions, Adverse Reactions, and other
relevant sections. Some of the current approaches to fulfilling the
brief summary requirement, while adequate from a regulatory
perspective, result in ads that may be difficult to read and understand
when used in consumer-directed promotion.
    In recent years, FDA has become concerned about the adequacy of the
brief summary in DTC print advertisements for prescription drugs.
Because the regulations do not specify how to address each risk,
sponsors can use discretion in fulfilling the brief summary requirement
under Sec.  202.1(e)(3)(iii). Frequently, sponsors print in small type,
verbatim, the risk-related sections of the approved product labeling
(also called the package insert, professional labeling, prescribing
information, and direction circular). This labeling is written for
health professionals, using medical terminology. While adequate to
fulfill the brief summary requirement for print advertisements, this
method may not be the most ideal. Research has shown that while many
consumers will make the effort to read the brief summary in
prescription drug print advertisements if they are especially
interested in the drug, as a general rule consumers typically read
little or none of the brief summary information.\1\ Health
practitioners themselves have indicated they often have difficulty
finding information they actively seek in package inserts (see 65 FR
80733 at 81082, December 22, 2000, for a discussion of studies
supporting the use of a highlights section in physician labeling).
There may be other ways to fulfill this requirement that improve
consumers' ability to find and comprehend the information in this
important document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Aikin, K.J., Swasy, J.L. and Braman, A.C. (2004). Patient
and Physician Attitudes and Behaviors Associated with DTC Promotion
of Prescription Drugs: Summary of FDA Survey Research Results, Final
Report. Available at http://www.fda.gov/cder/ddmac/Final%20Report/
FRfinal111904.pdf. Last accessed March 26, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is evidence suggesting that both information content and the
format in which it is presented will impact comprehension. For
instance, research with the format of over-the-counter (OTC) drug
(OTC) drug labels,\2\ the nutrition facts label,\3\ and other
information formats\4\ demonstrates that information presented with
section headings, graphics (such as bullets), and other design elements
is more easily read than information presented in paragraph format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Aikin, K.J. (1998). Consumer Comprehension and Preference
for Variations in the Proposed Over-The-Counter Drug Labeling
Format, Final Report; Vigilante, W.J. & Wogalter, M.S. (1997). The
preferred order of overt-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical label
components. Drug Information Journal, 31, 973-988.
    \3\ Levy, A.S., Fein, S.B. & Schucker, R.E. (1992). More
effective nutrition label formats are not necessarily more
preferred. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 92(10),
1230-1234.
    \4\ Lorch, R. & Lorch, E. (1995). Effects of organizational
signals on text-processing strategies. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 87(4), 537-544; Lorch, R. & Lorch, E. (1996). Effects of
organizational signals on free recall of expository text. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88(1), 38-48; Lorch, R., Lorch, E. & Inman,
W. (1993). Effects of signaling topic structure on text recall.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 281-290.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research conducted by FDA and others has examined the content and
format of the brief summary specifically. For instance, FDA conducted a
series of relevant studies (OMB control numbers 0910-0591 and 0910-
0611). Schwartz, Woloshin, and Welch have compared one format for
adding quantitative and qualitative benefit and risk information to the
brief summary.\5\ Specifically, Schwartz et al. designed a prescription
drug facts box similar in format to the Nutrition Facts panel and OTC
Drug Facts panel. The box contains a number of elements, including
qualitative and quantitative (both absolute frequency and absolute
difference) information about benefits and risks. This study showed
that consumers who were provided efficacy information in a prescription
drug facts box were more likely to correctly choose the product with
the higher efficacy than consumers who saw the brief summary using
medical language from the prescribing information. However, it is
unclear which elements of the drug facts box are necessary to improve
consumer understanding. For instance, it is not known whether simply
adding efficacy rate information to a consumer-friendly brief summary
would be sufficient to enable consumers to understand a product's
efficacy, or whether qualitative summations are necessary as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Schwartz, L.M., Woloshin, S., & Welch, H.G. (2009).
Communicating drug benefits and harms with a drug facts box: Two
randomized trials. Annals of Internal Medicine, 150(8). Available
online at http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200904210-
00106v1. Last accessed March 26, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current study will add to previous research by systematically
examining these different elements to determine whether and how to add
qualitative and quantitative benefit and risk information to the brief
summary. The results of this study will inform FDA of the usefulness
and parameters of various format and content options for the brief
summary.
    Design Overview: This study will be conducted in two concurrent
parts; one examining variations on the benefit information presented in
DTC print advertisements and the other examining variations on the risk
information presented in DTC print advertisements. The factors studied
will be the type of information (i.e., the addition of quantitative and
qualitative information in a box format) and the level of efficacy or
risk. We will vary the level of efficacy and risk such that the largest
effect is noticeably different from the placebo, whereas the smallest
effect is minimally different from the placebo. These factors will be
combined in a factorial design as follows:

                                      Table 1.--Proposed Design (4 x 5 + 2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Efficacy Level
  Information Type   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Smallest Effect     Smaller Effect    Mid-Size Effect    Larger Effect    Largest Effect
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolute Frequency    81% vs. 82%        61% vs. 82%        41% vs. 82%       21% vs. 82%       1% vs. 82%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolute Frequency +  Fewer              Fewer              Fewer             Fewer             Fewer
 Qualitative Label    81% vs. 82%        61% vs. 82%        41% vs. 82%       21% vs. 82%       1% vs. 82%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolute Difference   Fewer (1%)         Fewer (21%)        Fewer (41%)       Fewer (61%)       Fewer (81%)
 + Qualitative Label
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolute Frequency +  Fewer (1%)         Fewer (21%)        Fewer (41%)       Fewer (61%)       Fewer (81%)
Absolute Difference   81% vs. 82%        61% vs. 82%        41% vs. 82%       21% vs. 82%       1% vs. 82%
 + Qualitative Label
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note. Two other cells will be tested: (1) No information and (2) Qualitative label only (fewer). This design (22
  cells) will also be used to test risk information (for a total of 44 cells). The specific numbers in the table
  are placeholders only. Qualitative label example: ``fewer people taking drug X had disease/symptom Y.''

    The test product will be for the treatment of high prevalence
medical condition and modeled on an actual drug used to treat that
condition. Participants will be consumers who have been diagnosed with
the medical condition of interest. They will be randomly assigned to
read one ad version. After reading the ad, participants will answer a
series of questions about the drug. We will test how the information
type affects perceived efficacy, perceived risk, behavioral intention,
and accurate understanding of the benefit and risk information.
    Interviews are expected to last no more than 20 minutes. A total of
11,750 participants will be involved in the study. This will be a one-
time (rather than annual) collection of information.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 2.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              No. of         Annual Frequency       Total Annual        Hours per
                       Activity                            Respondents         per Response          Responses           Response         Total Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretest                                                               750                     1                750         20 minutes                250
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main Study                                                         11,000                     1             11,000         20 minutes              3,667
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                                                3,917
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: August 25, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-21629 Filed 8-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S