77274 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 

OSHA Webpage and for assistance using 

the Webpage to locate docket 

submissions.

All comments, submissions and 

background documents are available for 

inspection and copying at the OSHA 

Docket Office at the above address. 

Comments and submissions posed on 

OSHA’s Webpage are available at http:/

/www.OSHA.gov. Contact the OSHA 

Docket Office for information about 

materials not available through the 

OSHA Webpage and for assistance using 

the Webpage to locate docket 

submissions. 

Electronic copies of this Federal 

Register notice as well as other relevant 

documents are available on OSHA’s 

Webpage. Since all admissions become 

public, private information such as 

social security numbers should not be 

submitted. 

II. Background 

The Department of Labor, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, 

conducts a preclearance consultation 

program to provide the public with an 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

and continuing information collection 

requirements in accordance with the 

paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA–95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). 

This program ensures that 

information is in the desired format, 

reporting burden (time and cost) is 

minimal, collection instruments are 

clearly understood, and OSHA’s 

estimate of the information collection 

burden is accurate. The Occupational 

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act) 

(29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes 

information collection by employers as 

necessary or appropriate for 

enforcement of the Act or for developing 

information regarding the causes and 

prevention of occupational injuries, 

illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). 

The following provisions of 29 CFR 

part 1926, subpart R (the ‘‘Subpart’’) 

contain paperwork requirements: 

§§ 1926.752(a)(1) and (a)(2); 

1926.753(c)(5) and (e)(2); 1926.757(a)(7), 

(a)(9), and (e)(4)(i); 1926.758(g); 

1926.760(e) and (e)(1); 1926.761; and 

paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of Appendix G. 

These provisions ensure that: 

Designated parties, especially steel 

erectors, receive notice that building 

materials, components, steel structures, 

and fall-protection equipment are safe 

for specific uses; and employees 

exposed to fall hazards receive the 

required training in the recognition and 

control of fall hazards. These paperwork 

requirements provide a direct and 

efficient means for controlling 

contractors and steel erectors to inform 

others (e.g., employees) of steel-erection 

hazards and their control, thereby 

preventing death and serious injury by 

ensuring that structural steel members 

remain stable and that employees use 

fall protection correctly. 

III. Special Issues for Comment 

OSHA has a particular interest in 

comments on the following issues: 

• Whether the proposed information 

collection requirements are necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

Agency’s functions, including whether 

the information is useful; 

• The accuracy of OSHA’s estimate of 

the burden (time and cost) of the 

information collection requirements, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• The quality, utility, and clarity of 

the information collected; and 

• Ways to minimize the burden on 

employers who must comply; for 

example, by using automated or other 

technological information collection 

and transmission techniques.

IV. Proposed Actions 

OSHA is proposing to extend the 

information collection requirements in 

29 CFR par 1926, Subpart R (‘‘Steel 

Erection’’). The Agency will summarize 

the comments submitted in response to 

this notice and will include this 

summary in its request to OMB to 

extend the approval of these 

information collection requirements 

contained in the Standard. 

Type of Review: Extension of 

currently approved information 

collection requirement. 

Title: Subpart R Steel Erection 29 CFR 

1926.750 through 1926.761. 

OMB Number: 1218–0241. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit: not-for-profit institutions; Federal 

government; State, local, or tribal 

governments. 

Number of Respondents: 20,781. 

Frequency of Response: Varies from 

one occurrence per project for most of 

the paperwork requirement to 10 

occurrences per project for an employer 

to have a qualified rigger determine that 

it is safer to hoist and place purlins and 

single joists using deactivated safety 

latches on hooks rather than allowing 

the latches to remain activated. 

Average Time per Response: Varies 

from one minute for a controlling 

contractor to inform a steel erector to 

leave fall protection at the jobsite to 

three hours for controlling contractors to 

obtain approval from the project 

structural engineer of record before 

modifying anchor bolts. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours:

30,786. 

Estimated Cost (Operation and 

Maintenance): $0. 

V. Authority and Signature 

John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary 

of Labor for Occupational Safety and 

Health, directed the preparation of this 

notice. The authority for this notice is 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of 

Labor’s Order No. 5–2002 (67 FR 

65008).

Signed at Washington, DC on December 20, 

2004. 

John L. Henshaw, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 04–28218 Filed 12–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–M

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY

Cultural Diversity Advisory Committee 

Meetings (Teleconference)

AGENCY: National Council on Disability 

(NCD). 

Time and date: 3 p.m. e.s.t., January 

13, 2005. 

Place: National Council on Disability, 

1331 F Street, NW., Suite 850, 

Washington, DC 

Status: All parts of this meeting will 

be open to the public. Those interested 

in participating in this meeting should 

contact the appropriate staff member 

listed below. Due to limited resources, 

only a few telephone lines will be 

available for the call. 

Agenda: Roll call, announcements, 

reports, new business, adjournment.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Geraldine (Gerrie) Drake Hawkins, PhD., 

Program Analyst, NCD, 1331 F Street 

NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004; 

202–272–2004 (voice), 202–272–2074 

(TTY), 202–272–2022 (fax), 

ghawkins@ncd.gov. 

Cultural Diversity Advisory 

Committee Mission: The purpose of 

NCD’s Cultural Diversity Advisory 

Committee is to provide advice and 

recommendations to NCD on issues 

affecting people with disabilities from 

culturally diverse backgrounds. 

Specifically, the committee will help 

identify issues, expand outreach, infuse 

participation, and elevate the voices of 

underserved and unserved segments of 

this nation’s population that will help 

NCD develop federal policy that will 

address the needs and advance the civil 

and human rights of people from 

diverse cultures.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 77275

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

3See letter from Richard Lewandowski, Vice 

President, Division of Regulatory Services, CBOE, to 

Michael A. Macchiaroli, Associate Director, 

Division of Market Regulation (‘‘Division’’), 

Commission, dated April 1, 2004 (‘‘Amendment No. 

1’’).

4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 45630 

(March 22, 2002), 67 FR 15263 (March 29, 2002).

5See E-mail from Mike Ianni, Private Investor to 

rule-comments@sec.gov, dated November 7, 2002 

(‘‘Ianni E-mail’’).

6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46576 

(October 1, 2002), 67 FR 62843 (October 8, 2002) 

(File No. SR–NYSE–2002–19) (‘‘NYSE Proposal’’).

Dated: December 17, 2004. 

Jeff Rosen, 

Acting Executive Director and General 

Counsel and Director of Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–28159 Filed 12–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–MA–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–50886; File No. SR–CBOE–

2002–03] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice 

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and 

Amendment No. 1 Thereto by the 

Chicago Board Options Exchange, 

Incorporated Relating to Customer 

Portfolio and Cross-Margining 

Requirements 

December 20, 2004. 

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 April 2, 

2004, the Chicago Board Options 

Exchange, Incorporated (‘‘CBOE’’ or 

‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) Amendment No. 13 to 

the proposed rule change as described 

in Items I, II, and III below, which Items 

have been prepared by the CBOE. The 

CBOE submitted the original proposed 

rule change to the Commission on 

January 15, 2002 (‘‘Original Proposal’’). 

The proposed rule change was 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 29, 2002.4 The Commission 

received one comment letter in response 

to the proposed rule change.5 The CBOE 

is proposing Amendment No. 1 to make 

corrections or clarifications to the 

proposed rule, or to reconcile 

differences between the proposed rule 

and a parallel filing by the NYSE.6 The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change, as amended, from interested 

persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The CBOE proposes to amend its 

rules, for certain customer accounts, to 

allow member organizations to margin 

listed, broad-based, market index 

options, index warrants and related 

exchange-traded funds according to a 

portfolio margin methodology as an 

alternative to the current strategy-based 

margin methodology. The proposed rule 

change also will provide for crossmargining by allowing broad-based 

index futures and options on such 

futures to be included with listed, 

broad-based index options, index 

warrants and related exchange-traded 

funds for portfolio margin treatment, in 

a separate cross-margin account. The 

text of the proposed rule change is 

below. Additions are in italics. 

Deletions are in brackets.

* * * * *

Chapter XII Margins 

[Covered Options Contracts] 

Portfolio Margin and Cross-Margin for 

Index Options 

Rule 12.4. [Deleted January 15, 1975.] 

As an alternative to the transaction / 

position specific margin requirements 

set forth in Rule 12.3 of this Chapter 12, 

members may require margin for listed, 

broad-based U.S. index options, index 

warrants and underlying instruments 

(as defined below) in accordance with 

the portfolio margin requirements 

contained in this Rule 12.4.

In addition, members, provided they 

are a Futures Commission Merchant 

(‘‘FCM’’) and are either a clearing 

member of a futures clearing 

organization or have an affiliate that is 

a clearing member of a futures clearing 

organization, are permitted under this 

Rule 12.4 to combine a customer’s 

related instruments (as defined below) 

and listed, broad based U.S. index 

options, index warrants and underlying 

instruments and compute a margin 

requirement (‘‘cross-margin’’) on a 

portfolio margin basis. Members must 

confine cross-margin positions to a 

portfolio margin account dedicated 

exclusively to cross-margining.

Application of the portfolio margin 

and cross-margining provisions of this 

Rule 12.4 to IRA accounts is prohibited.

(a) Definitions.

(1) The term ‘‘listed option’’ shall 

mean any option traded on a registered 

national securities exchange or 

automated facility of a registered 

national securities association.

(2) The term ‘‘unlisted option’’ means 

any option not included in the 

definition of listed option.

(3) The term ‘‘options class’’ refers to 

all options contracts covering the same 

underlying instrument.

(4) The term ‘‘portfolio’’ means 

options of the same options class 

grouped with their underlying 

instruments and related instruments.

(5) The term ‘‘option series’’ relates to 

listed options and means all option 

contracts of the same type (either a call 

or a put) and exercise style, covering the 

same underlying instrument with the 

same exercise price, expiration date, 

and number of underlying units.

(6) The term ‘‘related instrument’’

within an option class or product group 

means futures contracts and options on 

futures contracts covering the same 

underlying instrument.

(7) The term ‘‘underlying instrument’’

means long and short positions in an 

exchange traded fund or other fund 

product registered under the Investment 

Company Act of 1940 that holds the 

same securities, and in the same 

proportion, as contained in a broad 

based index on which options are listed. 

The term underlying instrument shall 

not be deemed to include, futures 

contracts, options on futures contracts, 

underlying stock baskets, or unlisted 

instruments.

(8) The term ‘‘product group’’ means 

two or more portfolios of the same type 

(see subparagraph (a)(9) below) for 

which it has been determined by Rule 

15c3–1a under the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934 that a percentage of 

offsetting profits may be applied to 

losses at the same valuation point.

(9) The term ‘‘theoretical gains and 

losses’’ means the gain and loss in the 

value of individual option series and 

related instruments at 10 equidistant 

intervals (valuation points) ranging from 

an assumed movement (both up and 

down) in the current market value of the 

underlying instrument. The magnitude 

of the valuation point range shall be as 

follows: