[Federal Register: April 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 81)]
[Notices]
[Page 24879-24881]
[DOCID:fr27ap06-85]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53685; File No. SR-NYSE-2005-72]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (n/
k/a New York Stock Exchange LLC); Order Granting Approval of a Proposed
Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto and Notice of Filing and Order
Granting Accelerated Approval of Amendment No. 2 Thereto To Amend
Exchange Delisting Rules To Conform to Recent Amendments to Commission
Rules Regarding Removal From Listing and Withdrawal From Registration

April 20, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On October 20, 2005, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a New
York Stock Exchange LLC) (``NYSE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission''),
pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend Exchange delisting rules to conform to recent amendments to
Commission rules regarding removal from listing and withdrawal from
registration. On December 22, 2005, NYSE filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\3\ The proposed rule change, as amended, was
published for comment in the Federal Register on March 13, 2006.\4\ No
comments were received regarding the proposal. On April 11, 2006, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.\5\ This
order approves the proposed rule change, as amended, publishes notice
of Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change, and grants accelerated
approval to Amendment No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange made clarifying changes to
Item 3 of the Exchange's Form 19b-4 and to Exhibit 1.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53398 (March 2,
2006), 71 FR 12738.
    \5\ In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange made typographical changes
to the proposed rule text of Section 806.02 (Removal from List Upon
Request of Company) of the NYSE Listed Company Manual that were
intended to clarify that the Exchange's proposed new requirement
that a company provide a copy of the Form 25 to the Exchange
simultaneously with the filing of such Form 25 with the Commission
is a new requirement and is not part of the requirements of Rule
12d2-2(c) under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    Section 12 of the Act \6\ and Rule 12d2-2 thereunder \7\ (``SEC
Rule 12d2-2'') govern the process for the delisting and deregistration
of securities listed on national securities exchanges. Recent
amendments to SEC Rule 12d2-2 (``amended SEC Rule 12d2-2'') and other
Commission rules require the electronic filing of revised Form 25 on
the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval
(``EDGAR'') system by exchanges and issuers for all delistings, other
than delistings of standardized options and securities futures, which
are exempted.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78l.
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.12d2-2.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52029 (July 14,
2005), 70 FR 42456 (July 22, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of exchange-initiated delistings, amended SEC Rule
12d2-2(b) states that a national securities exchange may file an
application on Form 25 to strike a class of securities from listing
and/or withdraw the registration of such securities, in accordance with
its rules, if the rules of such exchange, at a minimum, provide for:
\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See also Form 8-K (Item 3.01. Notice of Delisting or Failure
to Satisfy a Continued Listing Rule or Standard; Transfer of
Listing), which sets forth disclosure requirements for issuers that
do not satisfy listing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Notice to the issuer of the exchange's decision to delist its
securities;
    (ii) An opportunity for appeal to the exchange's board of
directors, or to a committee designated by the board; and
    (iii) Public notice of the national securities exchange's final
determination to remove the security from listing and/or registration,
by issuing a press release and posting notice on its Web site. Public
notice must be disseminated no fewer than 10 days before the delisting
becomes effective pursuant to amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(d)(1), and must
remain posted on its Web site until the delisting is effective.
    The Exchange proposes to amend sections 804.00 and 806.02 of the
Exchange's Listed Company Manual. With respect to the above
requirements set forth in amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(b), NYSE rules
currently provide the requisite issuer notice as well as an opportunity
for appeal to a committee designated by the Board.\10\ NYSE rules do
not currently provide for the mandated public notice, and accordingly
the Exchange is proposing changes to section 804.00 of the NYSE Listed
Company Manual to provide that

prior to filing the Form 25 with the Commission to withdraw a security
from listing and registration, the Exchange will give public notice of
its final determination to delist the security by issuing a press
release and posting a notice on its Web site. Such notice would remain
posted on the Exchange's Web site until the delisting is effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See section 804.00 (Procedure for Delisting) of the NYSE
Listed Company Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of an issuer-initiated delisting, the NYSE is retaining
section 806.02 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual that currently
provides that an issuer may delist a security after its board approves
the action and the issuer furnishes the Exchange with a copy of the
board resolution authorizing such delisting certified by the secretary
of the issuer. The Exchange's proposal would clarify that the issuer
must comply with all of the requirements of amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)
and thereafter file a Form 25 with the Commission to withdraw its
security from listing and registration. The Exchange's proposal would
also add a new requirement that the issuer must file a copy of Form 25
with the Exchange immediately after submitting the Form 25 with the
Commission.
    In addition to the proposed changes to comply with amended SEC Rule
12d2-2, the Exchange proposes to amend section 804.00 to delete
references therein to ``public Directors'' and ``industry Directors,''
as these terms relate to a historical governance structure of the
Exchange that no longer exists.

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange \11\ and, in
particular, the requirements of section 6 of the Act.\12\ Specifically,
as discussed below, the Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ which requires, in
part, that the rules of an exchange be 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 regulating, clearing, settling, and processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Further, as noted in more
detail below, the changes being adopted by the Exchange meet the
requirements of amended SEC Rule 12d2-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Exchange Delisting

    Amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(b) states that a national securities
exchange may file an application on Form 25 to strike a class of
securities from listing and/or withdraw the registration of such
securities, in accordance with its rules, if the rules of such
exchange, at a minimum, provide for notice to the issuer of the
exchange's decision to delist, opportunity for appeal, and public
notice of the exchange's final determination to delist. The Commission
believes that the Exchange's current rules and proposal comply with the
dictates of amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(b).
    NYSE rules currently provide for the requisite issuer notice as
well as an opportunity for appeal to a committee designated by the
Board. Specifically, if the Exchange staff should determine to delist a
security, it will notify the issuer in writing of the basis of its
determination. Such notice will inform the issuer that the issuer may
appeal staff delisting determinations to a committee of the Board of
Directors of the Exchange.\14\ In addition, the proposed rule change
will provide for public notice of the Exchange's final determination to
remove the security from listing and/or registration. This should
ensure that investors have adequate notice of an exchange delisting and
is consistent with the protection of investors under section 6(b)(5) of
the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Section 804.00 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Issuer Voluntary Delisting

    In the case of an issuer-initiated delisting, section 806.02 of the
NYSE Listed Company Manual currently provides that an issuer may delist
a security after its board approves the action and the issuer furnishes
the Exchange with a copy of the board resolution authorizing such
delisting certified by the secretary of the issuer. The Exchange's
proposal would clarify that the issuer must comply with all of the
requirements of amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c) and thereafter file a Form
25 with the Commission to withdraw its security from listing and
registration. The Commission believes that the amendments will fully
inform issuers of the requirements for voluntary delisting of their
securities under NYSE rules and federal securities laws.
    The proposal also sets forth a new requirement not in amended SEC
Rule 12d2-2 that would require the issuer to notify the Exchange that
it has filed Form 25 with the Commission contemporaneously with such
filing. This requirement will allow the Exchange to be fully informed
of the actual filing of a Form 25 and be prepared to take timely action
to delist the security in accordance with the filing of the Form.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Commission notes that current section 807.00 of the
NYSE Listed Company Manual, which the Exchange is retaining in its
rules, provides in part that where a company falls below continued
listing standards, the Exchange will permit the company to
voluntarily transfer its listing. During this transition, the
Exchange will daily disseminate ticker and information notices
identifying the security's status and will include similar
information on the Exchange's Web site.
    In addition, amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)(2)(iii) requires a
company seeking voluntary delisting to publish notice of its
intention, along with its reasons for delisting, via a press release
and Web site. In such cases, the Commission expects that a company
below Exchange continued listing standards, in complying with
amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)(2)(iii), would disclose in its public
notice that it has fallen below continued listing standards,
including the specific listing policies and standards which it does
not comply with, and is voluntarily delisting from the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Accelerated Approval of Amendment No. 2

    Pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\17\ the Commission may not
approve any proposed rule change, or amendment thereto, prior to the
30th day after the date of publication of notice of the filing thereof,
unless the Commission finds good cause for so doing and publishes its
reasons for so finding. The Commission hereby finds good cause for
approving Amendment No. 2 to the proposal, prior to the 30th day after
publishing notice of Amendment No. 2 in the Federal Register. The
revisions made to the proposal in Amendment No. 2 are typographical
changes clarifying that the Exchange's proposed requirement that a
company provide a copy of the Form 25 to the Exchange simultaneously
with the filing of such Form with the Commission is a new requirement
and is not part of the requirements of amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c). This
was the intent of the provision as originally proposed. The Commission
believes that accelerating Amendment No. 2 is appropriate because these
revisions are clarifying and do not raise new regulatory issues.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section

19(b)(2) of the Act,\18\ the Commission finds good cause to approve
Amendment No. 2 prior to the thirtieth day after notice of the
Amendment is published in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning Amendment No. 2, including whether Amendment No. 2
is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-NYSE-2005-72 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2005-72. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSE-2005-72 and should be submitted on or before May
18, 2006.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\19\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSE-2005-72), as
amended, is approved, and Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change
is hereby granted accelerated approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-6320 Filed 4-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: June 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 104)]
[Notices]
[Page 26447-26449]
[DOCID:fr02jn09-114]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59981; File No. SR-CBOE-2009-024]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Related
to Its Obvious Error Rules

May 27, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On April 8, 2009, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend CBOE Rules 6.25 and
24.16 (collectively, the ``Obvious Error Rules'') pertaining to the
nullification and adjustment of options transactions. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on April 24,
2009.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters on the proposal.
This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59793 (April 20, 2009),
74 FR 18762.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. Merging Rules

    The Exchange proposes to merge Rule 24.16 (which currently relates
to only index, ETF and HOLDRS options) into Rule 6.25 (which currently
relates to only equity options) to form a single obvious error rule.

B. Obvious Pricing Errors

1. Definition of Theoretical Price
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.25's definition of
``Theoretical Price'' to base it on the national best bid or offer
(``NBBO'') instead of the market with the most liquidity. Using the
NBBO to define Theoretical Price is similar to how ``fair market
value'' is currently defined for obvious pricing errors under Rule
24.16. The Exchange also proposes to permit Trading Officials to
establish the Theoretical Price when the NBBO for the affected series,
just prior to the erroneous transaction, is at least two times the
permitted bid/ask differential under subparagraph (b)(iv)(A) of Rule
8.7.
2. Non-CBOE Market Makers
    The Exchange proposes to provide for the adjustment of Obvious
Pricing Error transactions involving non-CBOE Market-Makers, provided
the adjusted price does not violate the non-CBOE Market-Maker's limit
price.
3. ROS and HOSS Rotations
    The Exchange proposes to revise the Obvious Pricing Error provision
as it pertains to transactions occurring as part of the Rule 6.2A,
Rapid Opening System (``ROS''), or Rule 6.2B, Hybrid Opening System
(``HOSS''), rotations. With respect to regular ROS and HOSS rotations,
the Exchange is proposing to add a condition that the option contract
quantity subject to nullification or adjustment would not exceed the
size of the first quote after the transaction(s) in question that does
not reflect the erroneous transaction(s). Any nullifications or
adjustments would occur on a pro rata basis considering the overall
size of the ROS or HOSS opening trade. With respect to HOSS rotations
in index options series being used to calculate the final settlement
price of a volatility index, the Exchange proposes to carryover a
condition from Rule 24.16 that the first quote after the transaction(s)
in question that does not reflect the erroneous transaction(s) must be
for at least the size of the HOSS opening transaction(s). If the size
of the quote is less than the size of the opening transaction(s), then
the Obvious Pricing Error provision shall not apply.
4. Non-Broker-Dealer Customer Orders Entered Before the Opening
Rotation
    The Exchange proposes to extend the expanded notification period
applicable to transactions during opening rotations involving non-
broker-dealer Customers to include certain orders entered before the
opening that are executed immediately following the opening rotation.
Specifically, Rule 6.25 currently requires that members notify CBOE
Trading Officials or designated personnel in the control room within a
short time period following the execution of a trade (generally 15
minutes) if they believe the trade qualifies as an Obvious Pricing
Error. However, an expanded notification period is available for
transactions during option rotation occurring as part of ROS or HOSS
where at least one party to the transaction is a non-broker-dealer
Customer. The Exchange proposes to make the expanded notification
period applicable to transactions involving non-broker-dealer
Customers' marketable orders that are entered before the opening
rotation and that are executed as part of the Hybrid Agency Liaison
(``HAL'') on the opening process and certain transactions involving
non-broker-dealer Customers' complex orders that are entered before the
opening rotation and that are executed immediately following the
opening rotation through the Exchange's electronic Complex Order Book.
5. Binary Options
    The Exchange proposes to provide that any price adjustment for a
binary option series (including any adjustment penalty that may be
applicable to transactions between CBOE Market-Makers) shall not exceed
the applicable exercise settlement amount for the binary option.

C. Catastrophic Pricing Errors

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.25 to add criteria for
identifying ``Catastrophic Errors'' and making adjustments when
Catastrophic Errors occur, as well as a streamlined procedure for
reviewing actions taken in these extreme circumstances. Under Rule
6.25, trades that result from an Obvious Pricing Error may be adjusted
or busted according to objective standards. Under the Rule, whether an
Obvious Pricing error has occurred is determined by comparing the
execution price to the Theoretical Price of the option. The rule
requires that members notify CBOE Trading Officials or designated
personnel in the control room within a short time period following the
execution of a trade (generally 15 minutes) if they believe the trade
qualifies as an Obvious Pricing Error. Trades that qualify for
adjustment or are nullified under the Rule are compared to a price that
matches the theoretical price plus or minus an adjustment value for
transactions between CBOE Market Makers, which is $0.15 if the
Theoretical Value is under $3 and $0.30 if the Theoretical Value is at
or above $3. By adjusting trades above or below the Theoretical Price,
the rule assesses a ``penalty'' in that the adjustment price is not as
favorable as the amount the party making the error

would have received had it not made the error.
    In some extreme situations, members may not be aware of errors that
result in very large losses within the time periods required under the
Rule. In this type of extreme situation, CBOE proposes to give members
more time to seek relief so that there is a greater opportunity to
mitigate very large losses and reduce the corresponding large
windfalls. In such cases, the proposal sets forth the minimum amount by
which the options execution price must differ from the Theoretical
Price for a Catastrophic Error to occur. The proposal also sets forth
the adjustment value to be used by CBOE when it makes a Catastrophic
Error determination. A Catastrophic Error would be deemed to have
occurred when the execution price of a transaction is higher or lower
than the Theoretical Price for the option by an amount equal to at
least the ``Minimum Amount,'' and the adjustment would be made plus or
minus the ``Adjustment Value.'' At all price levels, the Minimum Amount
and the Adjustment Value for Catastrophic Errors would be significantly
higher than for Obvious Pricing Errors, which the Exchange believes
would limit the application of the proposed rule to situations where
the losses are very large.
    Under the new provision, generally, members will have until 7:30
a.m. Central Time on the day following the trade to notify Trading
Officials or designated personnel in the control room of a potential
Catastrophic Error. Once notification has been received within the
required time period, a panel comprised of at least one member of the
Exchange's staff designated to perform Catastrophic Error Panel
functions and four Exchange members (the ``Panel'') will review the
claim. Fifty percent of the number of Exchange members on the Panel
must be directly engaged in market making activity and fifty percent of
the number of Exchange members on the Panel must act in the capacity of
a floor broker. In the event the Panel determines that a Catastrophic
Error did not occur, the member that initiated the review will be
charged $5,000.

D. Erroneous Prints & Quotes in the Underlying

1. Adjustments
    For consistency, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.25 to allow
for adjustments and nullifications of erroneous prints in the
underlying (currently the provision calls for nullifications only).
2. Average Quote Width
    The Exchange is also proposing to revise the provisions to
determine the ``average quote width'' in the underlying by adding the
quote widths of sample quotations at regular 15-second intervals during
the two minutes preceding and following an erroneous transaction.
3. Designation of Underlying
    The Exchange proposes to modify the erroneous trade and quote
provisions to allow the Exchange to designate the applicable underlying
security(ies) or related instruments for any option. Under the revised
rule, the Exchange would identify particular underlying or, with
respect to ETF(s), HOLDRS(s), and index options, related instrument(s)
that would be used to determine an erroneous print or quote and would
also identify the relevant market(s) trading the underlying or related
instrument to which the Exchange would look for purposes of applying
the obvious error analysis. The underlying or related instrument(s) and
relevant market(s) will be designated by the Exchange and announced via
Regulatory Circular. For a particular ETF, HOLDRS, index value and/or
futures product to qualify for consideration as a ``related
instrument,'' the revised rule requires that: (i) The option class and
related instrument must be derived from or designed to track the same
underlying index; or (ii) in the case of S&P 100-related options, the
options class and related instrument must be derived from or designed
to track the S&P 100 Index or the S&P 500 Index.

E. Trading Officials

    The Exchange is proposing to change the definition of the term
Trading Officials to mean three Exchange officials designated to
perform Trading Official functions, at least one of which is an
Exchange member designated as a Floor Official and at least one of
which is a member of the Exchange's staff designated to perform Trading
Official functions. The term is currently defined to mean two Exchange
members designated as Floor Officials and one member of the Exchange's
staff designated to perform Trading Official functions.

F. Obvious Error Panel

    The Exchange is proposing to change a reference from ``non-DPM
floor brokers'' to simply ``floor brokers'' in the composition
requirements for Obvious Error Panels, which review certain
determinations rendered by Trading Officials and the senior official in
the Exchange's control room under Rule 6.25(b).

III. Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange\4\ and, in
particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act \5\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder. Specifically, the Commission finds
that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in
that the proposal is designed to promote just and equitable principles
of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove
impediments and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission considers that in most circumstances trades that are
executed between parties should be honored. On rare occasions, the
price of the executed trade indicates an obvious error may exist,
suggesting that it is unrealistic to expect that the parties to the
trade had come to a meeting of the minds regarding the terms of the
transaction. In approving proposals relating to adjustment or
nullification of trades involving obvious errors, the Commission has
stated that the determination of whether an obvious error has occurred
and the process for reviewing such a determination should be based on
specific and objective criteria and subject to specific and objective
procedures.\7\ The Commission believes that the rule changes proposed
by the CBOE are clear, specific, and objective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58778
(October 14, 2008), 73 FR 62577 (October 21, 2008) and 58460
(September 4, 2008), 73 FR 53060 (September 12, 2008) (approving
revisions to CBOE's Obvious Error Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Merging Rules

    Merging CBOE Rules 6.25 and 24.16 improves clarity and efficiency
by harmonizing the obvious error provision across all equity option
transactions into one rule.

Obvious Pricing Errors

    The modifications to CBOE's pricing error provision clarify the
objective standards that are to be applied in determining whether an
obvious error has occurred. Utilizing the NBBO as a reference point for
theoretical price is in

conformity with other obvious error provisions previously approved by
the Commission.\8\ The amendments relating to non-CBOE market-makers
and ROS and HOSS rotations also conform CBOE's rule to rules already
approved by the Commission.\9\ The Commission believes that expanding
the applicability of the extended customer obvious error notification
provision for transactions involving certain non-broker-dealer customer
orders that are entered before the opening rotation and that are
executed as part of HAL on the opening process or that are executed
immediately following the opening rotation through the Complex Order
Book would give those customers a reasonable amount of time to discover
an obvious error transaction and to request an obvious error review.
The Commission believes that limiting the price adjustment for binary
options is reasonable and objective in light of the payout structure of
those options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57712 (April
24, 2008), 73 FR 24100 (May 1, 2008) (approving revisions to the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange's Obvious Error Rule).
    \9\ See, e.g., CBOE Rule 24.16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Catastrophic Error

    The Commission believes that the proposed catastrophic error
provision balances the need for certainty of trades and mitigating
large losses due to errors in extreme circumstances through clear and
objective procedures.\10\ Moreover, the Commission believes that the
proposed Catastrophic Error Panel, the streamlined review process, and
the proposed fee for unsuccessful claims are appropriate to accomplish
this balance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57398 (February 28,
2008), 73 FR 12240 (March 6, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Erroneous Prints and Quotes in the Underlying

    The Commission deems that the provision allowing CBOE to designate
the applicable underlying securities (or related instruments) and
relevant markets for any option is beneficial to members in determining
whether an erroneous print or quote has occurred. The provision takes
into account the fact that members often base their options prices on
various products in various markets and that erroneous options
transactions may be a result of erroneous prints or quotes in markets
other than the primary market for an underlying security. The changes
to the calculation of average quote width and allowing adjustments in
addition to nullifications are appropriate and consistent with other
rules previously approved by the Commission.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra, note 8, and Rule 6.25(a)(5) (relating to an
erroneous quote in the underlying).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trading Officials and Obvious Error Panel

    The Commission believes that the change to the definition of
``Trading Officials'' is appropriate and does not negatively impact the
objectiveness or fairness of CBOE's obvious error provisions. Lastly,
the Commission notes that deleting ``non-DPM'' from the definition of
floor brokers is a non-substantive technical change and is appropriate.
    IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2009-024) is hereby
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-12717 Filed 6-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Page 1 of 6 HUMAN RESEARCH POLICY NATIONAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS RESEARCH LABORATORY ( 9 27 04)

1. PURPOSE This document presents the EPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory ( NHEERL) policy on the general requirements and responsibilities for initial approval, conduct, and oversight of human research activities conducted, or supported, by NHEERL. This policy covers research activities that involve the collection or study of data or samples that are of human origin or are otherwise linked to human data. This includes both the collection of information or measurements from, or about, humans and the analysis of existing data sets, tissues, or other specimens of human origin. Additional guidance for specific situations and study types is available in an accompanying NHEERL Human Research Guidance document. The Guidance document provides guidelines for approval and conduct of HSR in general, as well as for controlled human exposure studies, epidemiology studies, human tissue studies, and studies using NHEERL employees as subjects.

2. APPLICABILITY This policy applies to all research activities: a. Conducted by or supported by NHEERL or in which NHEERL employees collaborate with other institutions, and b. Meeting the definition of research involving human subjects as defined by the Common Rule ( 40 CFR 26.102) and given below.

3. DEFINITIONS All definitions listed in EPA Order 1000.17, Change A1 and in the Common Rule ( 40 CFR 26.102) [ both documents found at http:// intranet. epa. gov/ rmpolicy/ ads/ orders/ 1000_ 17a. pdf] apply to this policy. Four key definitions derived or summarized from these documents are listed below.

a. Human subject [ 40 CFR 26.102( f)] and [ EPA Order 1000.17, Change A1, 3( d)] means a living individual about whom an investigator conducting research obtains ( 1) Data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or ( 2) Identifiable private information.

b. Research [ 40 CFR 26.102( d)] and [ EPA Order 1000.17, Change A1, 3( a)] means a systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge. Activities which meet this definition constitute research for purposes of this policy, whether or not Page 2 of 6 they are conducted or supported under a program which is considered research for other purposes.

c. Human subjects research ( HSR) or Research involving human subjects. Research activity that meets the definitions of both research and human subject given above and in 40 CFR 26.102 and EPA Order 1000.17, Change A1.

d. Exempt research [ EPA Order 1000.17, Change A1, 3( b)]. Human subjects research falling into one of several categories described in 40 CFR 26.101 ( b), which is exempt from the Common Rule.

4. POLICY a. All research activities meeting the definition of human subjects research ( HSR) conducted or supported by NHEERL shall comply with EPA Order 1000.17, Change A1, with the Common Rule ( 40 CFR 26), and with this policy. In addition, research involving pregnant women, fetuses, and neonates; prisoners; and children shall comply with Subparts B, C, and D, respectively, of the Common Rule, as codified by the Department of Health and Human Services in 45 CFR 46 [ http:// www. hhs. gov/ ohrp/ humansubjects/ guidance/ 45cfr46. htm].

b. All research activities that collect or use data or materials of human origin must be classified as either meeting, or not meeting, the definition of HSR by the Director of the NHEERL Human Research Protocol Office ( HRPO) prior to the initiation of any research.

c. All HSR must be approved by the NHEERL Associate Director for Health or Ecology prior to submission to the Agency Human Subjects Research Review Official ( HSRRO).

d. All HSR must be either approved or determined to be Exempt Research by the Agency HSRRO before any research is conducted by or supported by NHEERL.

e. The NHEERL HRPO is the official NHEERL repository for protocol packages ( see Section 5) involving human research activities. Complete copies of the original protocol package, amendments, Institutional Review Board ( IRB) approval letters, consent forms, renewal application packages, adverse event reports, and all correspondence to and from the IRB must be provided by the Principal Investigator to the HRPO prior to the conduct of ( additional) research.

f. Each NHEERL Division conducting HSR shall appoint a Division Human Research Officer ( DHRO) who serves as the key Division resource for day to day compliance with existing Federal regulations and with this NHEERL human Page 3 of 6 research policy.

g. Any violation or deviation of the conduct of research from an approved HSR protocol or any occurrence of an adverse event, including subject injury or unexpected response, must be immediately reported by the Principal Investigator to the IRB, to the Director of the NHEERL HRPO, and to NHEERL management, which will report the information up the NHEERL chain of command, and, if indicated, to the Agency HSRRO.

h. Each NHEERL employee engaged in the conduct of HSR, or in the HSR approval chain, shall complete, each calendar year, at least one hour of relevant training that must be approved by the Director of the NHEERL HRPO. Documentation of all such training shall be provided to the Director of the NHEERL HRPO. Each employee engaged in a human subjects research protocol must also meet any training requirements of the IRB overseeing the specific protocol.

5. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS To obtain approval for an HSR study from the appropriate NHEERL Associate Director ( AD), a human subjects research protocol package must be prepared that includes the elements shown below. Further guidance on the preparation of this package and the required reviews is found in the accompanying NHEERL Human Research Guidance document.

a. NHEERL documents ( 1) Cover letter ( 2) Sign off sheet ( 3) Fact Sheet ( 4) Study Justification Document b. IRB package ( 1) IRB approval letter ( 2) Written research protocol ( 3) Consent forms approved and stamped by the IRB ( 4) Questionnaires and advertising approved and stamped by the IRB ( 5) HSR training certificates c. Reviews ( 1) Any required extramural scientific reviews with written responses ( 2) Any required medical, statistical, or other reviews with written responses 6. RESPONSIBILITIES Page 4 of 6 The following NHEERL organizational and individual responsibilities apply to the development, management, and conduct of any research study involving human subjects.

a. Principal Investigator ( PI) The PI is responsible for all aspects of the study and must be exceedingly knowledgeable about HSR regulations, the science supporting the proposed study, and any potential risks to subjects. The PI has specific responsibilities to the EPA, to the IRB, and to the subjects participating in the research. The PI must: ( 1) Understand and comply with EPA and NHEERL human research policy. ( 2) Understand and comply with the requirements of all IRBs with jurisdiction over a particular study. ( 3) Prepare a protocol package that clearly and accurately presents the scientific rationale for the study, the potential risks to the subjects, and the expected benefits of the study so that scientific and ethical reviewers have all the necessary information to make objective judgements about the protocol. ( 4) Ensure that the initial review and approval of the study by EPA is completed. ( 5) Minimize risk and ensure the safety and well being of the subjects. ( 6) Conduct the study in an ethical manner. ( 7) Maintain accurate records, including documentation of informed consent and current IRB approval, and send copies of all correspondence with the IRB of record, including all protocol amendments and renewals, to the NHEERL HRPO. ( 8) Report any adverse effects or noncompliance with the protocol to the NHEERL HRPO Director, NHEERL line management, and to the IRB. ( 9) Oversee study staff.

b. Branch Chief ( BC) The PI's Branch Chief is responsible for ensuring that the composition of the research team is appropriate; that all requirements for initial reviews, meetings, and written responses have been met; and that the written protocol is scientifically and ethically sound. In particular the BC must: ( 1) Ensure that the PI or a Co PI has significant previous HSR experience. ( 2) Ensure that the research team has appropriate scientific and medical expertise to safely and ethically realize the goals of the study. ( 3) Ensure that required meetings among the PI and all relevant parties ( e. g. medical staff, recruitment staff, etc.) occur prior to protocol preparation and again prior to study commencement. ( 4) Ensure that all required written reviews ( e. g. medical review, statistical review, extramural peer review, etc.) have been completed and that the PI Page 5 of 6 has adequately addressed the reviewers comments in writing. ( 5) Review the protocol and consent form to ensure that the proposed study is scientifically sound and clearly presented, and that he/ she is satisfied that the risks to subjects have been accurately presented in both the protocol and the consent form.

c. Division Human Research Officer ( DHRO) The DHRO will review the proposed protocol and consent form and must: ( 1) Ensure that they are consistent with the requirements of both the EPA and the IRB and that EPA required language has been included in the consent form. ( 2) Ensure that the protocol identifies the risks to subjects and the measures to reduce this risk. ( 3) Ensure that ethical issues which should be clarified or addressed prior to submission to the IRB are identified.

d. Division Director ( DD) The DD will ensure that all lower level reviews have been completed and that the BC, DHRO, and other Division reviewers are aware of, and are fulfilling, their HSR review responsibilities.

e. Director, NHEERL Human Research Protocol Office ( HRPO) The Director of NHEERL HRPO is responsible for initial review of the protocol package and maintenance of NHEERL records for HSR. The Director will ( 1) Ensure that the protocol package contains all necessary elements for approval by the appropriate Associate Laboratory Director and the Agency HSRRO. ( 2) Ensure that all required reviews have been completed and adequately addressed by the PI. ( 3) Ensure that the protocol identifies the risks to subjects, the measures taken to reduce this risk, and any ethical issues that must be further addressed by the PI. ( 4) Ensure that the consent form contains any specific language required by NHEERL. ( 5) Maintain all HSR records, including the original protocol package and approval letters, subsequent amendments and renewals with IRB approval letters, and any other correspondence with the IRB.

f. NHEERL Associate Director ( AD) for Health or Ecology The appropriate NHEERL AD provides the final NHEERL review prior to Agency review. Specific responsibilities include: ( 1) Review of the protocol package to ensure clarity of information. ( 2) Review of the package for any scientific, policy, or ethics issues that need Page 6 of 6 to be further clarified. ( 3) Transmission of the approved protocol package to the Agency HSRRO.

g. All NHEERL employees All NHEERL employees are responsible for reporting the following to the NHEERL HRPO and the appropriate DD: ( 1) Any serious or unanticipated harm experienced by research subjects. ( 2) Any deviations of HSR from the approved protocol. ( 3) Any unethical or unsafe behavior by anyone associated with HSR conducted in or supported by NHEERL.


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 1, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2002-12502

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of UNITED AIR LINES, INC. (UNITED), filed  4/19/04, for:

XX Renewal of exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide
the following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between the terminal point Denver, Colorado, and the terminal point
Mexico City, Mexico.  United states that it will continue to provide
seasonal service in the market with its own aircraft.

Applicant reps: Jeffrey Manley (United)<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst:
Linda Lundell<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions and remarks, see below)

The above action was effective when taken:  _June 1, 2004,  through
_June 1, 2006  .

Action taken by:	Paul L. Gretch, Director

			Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

	XX    United’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

                      XX    Standard Exemption Conditions (attached)

(See next page)

												2

Conditions/Remarks:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted to
United is subject to the dormancy notice requirements set forth in
condition 7 of Appendix A of Order 88-10-2.

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the application was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the

referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time

without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

				Appendix A

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										5/2004

  The original request in this matter involved code-share services
between United and Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V.
(Mexicana), along with exemption authority to serve the
Sacramento-Guadalajara market (see Notice of Action Taken dated June 21,
2002, in Docket OST-2002-12502).  In August 2002, United converted its
authority to serve the Denver-Mexico City market from code-share only to
direct-carrier services.  And, in November 2003, United advised that its
code-share arrangement with Mexicana would terminate on March 31, 2004.
In the instant application United states that, as the
Sacramento-Guadalajara market was granted for code-share services only,
and in light of the termination of the United/Mexicana code-share
agreement, United does not seek to renew the Sacramento-Guadalajara
exemption authority here.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58672-58674]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23250]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 135

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0982]
RIN 2120-AJ53

Helicopter Air Ambulance, Commercial Helicopter, and Part 91
Helicopter Operations; Clarification

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; clarification.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides clarification of the intent of the
Approach/Departure IFR Transitions regulation contained in the
Helicopter Air Ambulance, Commercial Helicopter, and Part 91 Helicopter
Operations final rule, published on February 22, 2014. After
publication, the FAA received comments and questions from intended
users and industry advocacy groups about the clarity of terms used in
this regulation, specifically, regarding the use of published
instrument approaches and departures and the visibility limitations and
differences between the terms ``proceed visually'' and ``proceed VFR''.
The FAA is clarifying the terms and intent of this regulation in order
to increase situational awareness and enhance Helicopter Air Ambulance
safety. This clarification is intended for Part 135 air carriers
engaged in helicopter air ambulance operations, and Principal
Inspectors with oversight responsibility for helicopter air ambulance
operations.

DATES: Effective September 30, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions, contact
Andrew C. Pierce, Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards
Service, Federal Aviation Administration; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions contact Nancy Sanchez,
Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation
Administration; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 21, 2014, the FAA published a
final rule entitled, ``Helicopter Air

Ambulance, Commercial Helicopter, and part 91 Helicopter Operations''
(79 FR 9932) (effective date delayed on April 21, 2014, at 79 FR 22012;
final rule corrected at 79 FR 41125, July 15, 2014). In that final
rule, the FAA addressed helicopter air ambulance operations and all
commercial helicopter operations conducted under part 135. The FAA also
established new weather minimums for helicopters operating under part
91 in Class G airspace. In the February 21, 2014, final rule, the FAA,
among other things, added Sec.  135.613 to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations. Section 135.613, Approach/departure IFR transitions,
describes the required weather minimums to transition into and out of
the IFR environment, aiding in the transition from the minimum descent
altitude on an instrument approach procedure, to the point of intended
landing.

Background

    Copter Point-in-Space Instrument Approach Procedures with a final
visual segment are designed to accommodate one of two types of visual
transitions between the missed approach point (MAP) and the intended
point of landing. The approach procedure may depict a visual transition
noted as ``proceed visually'' or a visual transition noted as ``proceed
VFR''. ``Proceed visually'' transition segments are designed with
relatively short distances between the MAP and the intended landing
site and are considered a continuation of the IFR procedure. ``Proceed
VFR'' transition segments span longer distances and/or require turns
from the final approach course toward a landing facility and therefore
require commensurately greater ceilings and visibilities as defined
within 14 CFR 135.613. The same may be said about departures from
landing facilities to enter the IFR flight environment. Obstacle
Departure Procedures (ODP) may provide takeoff minimum weather
conditions for IFR departures from the landing site. Other landing
facility departures that do not have published takeoff minimums on an
ODP must observe higher ceiling and visibility minimums in accordance
with 14 CFR 135.613.

Discussion

    The FAA received a summary of comments and input from associations
and various operators in the helicopter air ambulance industry on the
Helicopter Air Ambulance, Commercial Helicopter, and Part 91 Helicopter
Operations final rule. The summary paper was prepared by Helicopter
Association International (HAI), American Medical Operators Association
(AMOA) and the Association of Air Medical Services (AAMS). The various
operators stated that the title of 135.613 is misleading and will cause
confusion. The commenters explained that the title of the regulation
references IFR transitions when it should be referencing VFR
transitions.
    The FAA clarifies that the regulation addresses IFR clearances and
visual or VFR transitions into or out of the IFR flight environment,
thus the regulation correctly characterizes the transitions as elements
of the IFR environment.
    Multiple industry commenters also voiced concerns regarding
technical differences between the terms ``proceed visually'' and
``proceed VFR'' as applied to transitions for instrument approaches and
instrument departures. The following provides further explanation to
assist industry in understanding what the difference is between the two
terms.
    Copter Point-in-Space approaches provide an instrument descent
along a predetermined course to safely allow IFR helicopter traffic to
descend to a minimum descent altitude (MDA) prior to or upon arriving
at MAP. At the MAP, the pilot must assess whether or not the flight can
safely and legally proceed to the destination in the meteorological
conditions present. Continuation of the flight beyond the MAP must be
accomplished via a visual transition segment in accordance with the
design of the Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP).
    There are two types of visual transition segments associated with
continued flight beyond the MAP to one or more nearby landing
facilities clustered around the MAP. The published approach procedure
will indicate either ``proceed visually'' or ``proceed VFR'' along this
transition segment. The presence of obstructions and terrain, combined
with the distance between the MAP and the landing facility, determine
the type of transition and the visibility required to legally and
safely make the transition from the MAP to the destination.
    If a published approach depicts a ``proceed visually'' segment,
that segment is conducted on a clearance under IFR and is not the
subject of discussion under Sec.  135.613. This case is analogous to
the visual transition from a MAP to a runway on an IFR approach, which
is conducted visually. In the case of the ``proceed visually''
transition, the minimum required visibility will be indicated on the
published procedure. Generally, this means the pilot should be able to
see the destination heliport from the MAP. The minimum distance between
the MAP and a destination landing facility for a ``proceed visually''
transition is 0.65 nautical miles. This minimum segment distance is
intended to facilitate avoidance of adverse consequences of combined
high descent rates and deceleration rates. The minimum visibility for
the ``proceed visually'' transition segment is \3/4\ nautical mile, so
that the pilot should always be able to visually acquire the point of
intended landing before beginning the visual segment of the instrument
approach. The required visibility is commensurately greater for
``proceed visually'' transition segments that are longer than 0.65
nautical miles.
    If a published approach depicts a ``proceed VFR'' segment, the
visual segment must be conducted under VFR. 14 CFR 135.613 pertains to
the ``proceed VFR'' transition when depicted on the published approach.
If the distance between the MAP and the landing facility is less than
or equal to one nautical mile, Sec.  135.613(a)(1) sets the minimum
visibility to 1 statute mile. If the distance between the MAP and the
intended landing site is between one nautical mile and three nautical
miles, Sec.  135.613(a)(2) sets the day ceiling and visibility
requirements to 600' and 2 nautical miles, and sets the night ceiling
and visibility requirements to 600' and 3 nautical miles. If the
distance between the MAP and the intended landing site is greater than
three nautical miles, Sec.  135.613(a)(3) requires the ceiling and
visibility to meet either the helicopter air ambulance Class G VFR
weather minimums shown in Table 1 of Sec.  135.609, or, if within Class
B, C, D, or E airspace, to meet the weather minimums referenced in
Sec.  135.205.
    With respect to instrument departures, Sec.  135.613(b) addresses
only VFR to IFR transitions, not departures conducted under an IFR
clearance with takeoff minimums published on an ODP. If a departing
flight obtains an IFR clearance valid from lift off and weather meets
or exceeds the published ODP takeoff minimums, the pilot can ``proceed
visually'' under the IFR clearance to the Initial Departure Fix (IDF).
In this case, there is no VFR segment, the published takeoff weather
requirements are in effect, and Sec.  135.613(b) does not apply.
    If, however, the departing flight must lift off VFR and ``proceed
VFR'' via an ODP to a point where an IFR clearance becomes effective or
to a point where the IFR clearance may be obtained on the way to the
IDF, Sec.  135.613(b)(1) applies. This requires a minimum visibility of
1 nautical mile prior to lift off if the IDF is no more than 1 nautical

mile away from the point of lift off. If the departure involves a VFR
to IFR transition and does not meet the requirements of Sec.
135.613(b)(1), (there is no ODP, and/or the IDF is more than 1 nautical
mile from the point of lift off), the VFR weather minimums required by
the class of airspace apply. If the flight is within Class G airspace,
refer to Sec.  135.609; if it is within Class B, C, D, or E airspace,
refer to Sec.  135.205.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 24, 2014.
Michael J. Zenkovich,
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-23250 Filed 9-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P