Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 160 / Thursday, August 20, 2009 / Notices 42139 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60177 

(June 25, 2009), 74 FR 32015. 

—Member Roundtable. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

meeting is open to the public however 

advance notice of attendance is 

requested. Anyone wishing to be a 

listening participant must contact 

Alanna Falcone by Friday, September 

11, 2009, by fax or e-mail in order to be 

placed on the agenda. Alanna Falcone, 

Program Analyst, 409 Third Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20416, Phone 202–619– 

1612, Fax 202–481–0134, e-mail, 

alanna.falcone@sba.gov. 

Additionally, if you need 

accommodations because of a disability 

or require additional information, please 

contact Alanna Falcone at the 

information above. 

Meaghan Burdick, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–19999 Filed 8–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meeting 

Federal Register Citation of Previous 

Announcement: [74 FR 41466, August 

17, 2009]. 

STATUS: Closed Meeting. 

PLACE: 100 F Street, NE., Washington, 

DC. 

DATE AND TIME OF PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED

MEETING: Thursday, August 20, 2009 at 

2 p.m. 

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: Cancellation of 

Meeting. 

The Closed Meeting scheduled for 

Thursday, August 20, 2009 at 2 p.m. has 

been cancelled. 

For further information please contact 

the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551– 

5400. 

Dated: August 18, 2009. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–20099 Filed 8–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[File No. 500–1] 

In the Matter of Magnum Resources, 

Inc., Manakoa Services Corp. (n/k/a 

Teslavision Corp.), Maxus Technology 

Corp., Med/Waste, Inc., Medsearch 

Technologies, Inc., and Meisenheimer 

Capital, Inc.; Order of Suspension of 

Trading 

August 18, 2009. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Magnum 

Resources, Inc. because it has not filed 

any periodic reports since the period 

ended April 30, 1999. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Manakoa 

Services Corp. (n/k/a Teslavision Corp.) 

because it has not filed any periodic 

reports since the period ended 

December 31, 2006. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Maxus 

Technology Corp. because it has not 

filed any periodic reports since the 

period ended November 30, 2004. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Med/Waste, 

Inc. because it has not filed any periodic 

reports since the period ended 

September 30, 2000. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Medsearch 

Technologies, Inc. because it has not 

filed any periodic reports since the 

period ended September 30, 2001. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of 

Meisenheimer Capital, Inc. because it 

has not filed any periodic reports since 

the period ended February 29, 2004. 

The Commission is of the opinion that 

the public interest and the protection of 

investors require a suspension of trading 

in the securities of the above-listed 

companies. 

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to 

Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934, that trading in the 

securities of the above-listed companies 

is suspended for the period from 9:30 

a.m. EDT on August 18, 2009, through 

11:59 p.m. EDT on August 31, 2009. 

By the Commission. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–20111 Filed 8–18–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–60488; File No. SR–CBOE– 

2009–037] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Chicago Board Options Exchange, 

Incorporated; Order Approving 

Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by 

Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, To 

Amend Its Minor Rule Violation Plan 

August 12, 2009. 

On June 4, 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 

amending CBOE Rule 17.50 (Minor Rule 

Plan) (‘‘MRP’’) to incorporate additional 

violations into the MRP, increase the 

sanctions for certain violations, to make 

other minor changes, and to make 

changes to the trading and decorum 

violations. On June 17, 2009, the 

Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the 

proposed rule change to make nonsubstantive, technical edits to the rule 

text submitted as Exhibit 5 to SR– 

CBOE–2009–037. On June 23, 2009, the 

Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the 

proposed rule change making 

corrections to the description of the 

changes submitted in Amendment No. 

1. The proposed rule change, as 

amended, was published for comment 

in the Federal Register on July 6, 2009.3

The Commission received no comments 

on the proposal. This order approves the 

proposed rule change. 

The Exchange has proposed to make 

additional rules subject to punishment 

under its the MRP. These rules relate to: 

(1) Exercise limits (Rule 4.12); (2) 

trading in restricted classes (Rule 5.4); 

(3) linkage violations (Rules 6.83 and 

6.84); (4) market maker quoting 

obligations (Rules 8.7, 8.15A, 8.85, and 

8.93); (5) failure to accurately report 

position and account information (Rule 

4.13); (6) failure to designate a person or 

persons responsible for implementing 

and monitoring a member’s anti-money 

laundering compliance program (Rule 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
42140 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 160 / Thursday, August 20, 2009 / Notices 

4The proposed increased fines would apply to 

the following violations: (1) Failure to respond in 

a timely manner to a request for automated 

submission of trade data (‘‘Blue Sheets’’) (Rule 

15.7); (2) failure of a floor broker or market maker 

to honor the firm quote requirements (Rule 8.51), 

to honor the priority of marketable customer orders 

maintained in the Customer Limit Order Book (Rule 

6.45), and to use due diligence in the execution of 

orders for which the floor member maintains an 

agency obligation (Rule 6.73); and (3) violations of 

exercise and exercise advice rules for Americanstyle, cash-settled index options (Rule 11.1, 

Interpretation and Policy .03). 

5The violations that will have a 24-month rolling 

period are: (1) Violation of exercise and position 

limits (Rule 4.11 and 4.12); (2) failure to respond 

in a timely manner to a request for automated 

submission of trade data (‘‘Blue Sheets’’) (Rule 

15.7); (3) failure of a floor broker or market maker 

to honor the firm quote requirements (Rule 8.51), 

to honor the priority of marketable customer orders 

maintained in the Customer Limit Order Book (Rule 

6.45), and to use due diligence in the execution of 

orders for which the floor member maintains an 

agency obligation (Rule 6.73); (4) failure to submit 

trade data on trade date (Rule 6.51); (5) violations 

of exercise and exercise advice rules for Americanstyle, cash-settled index options (Rule 11.1, 

Interpretation and Policy .03); (6) communications 

to the Exchange or the clearing corporation (Rule 

4.22); (7) trading in restricted classes (Rule 5.4); (8) 

linkage violations (Rules 6.83 and 6.84); (9) failure 

to meet Exchange quoting obligations (Rules 8.7, 

8.15A, 8.85, and 8.93); (10) failure to accurately 

report position and account information (Rule 4.13); 

(11) failure to provide prior capital withdrawal 

notice (Rule 15c3–1(e) under the Act); (12) failure 

to provide post capital withdrawal notice (Rule 

15c3–1(e) under the Act); and (13) failure to 

designate a person or persons responsible for 

implementing and monitoring a member’s antimoney laundering compliance program (Rule 4.20). 

6Class A Offenses are considered more serious 

than Class B Offenses and therefore carry a heavier 

penalty. Class A Offenses include unbusinesslike 

conduct, harassment, and property damage. Class B 

Offenses include abusive language, dress code 

violations, and failure to display I.D. 7The previous fine levels for Class A Offenses 

were: $500 to $1,500 for the first violation, $1,000 

to $3,000 for the second violation, $2,000 to $5,000 

for the third violation, and $3,500 to $5,000 for 

subsequent offenses. 8The previous fine levels for Class B Offenses 

were: $100 to $500 for the first offense, $500 to 

$1,000 for the second offense, $1,000 for the third 

offense, and $2,500 for subsequent offenses. 9The Exchange is proposing to remove ten Class 

A and Class B Violations. They are: (i) Quote width 

violations; (ii) violations of Rule 8.51 (Firm Quote); 

(iii) enabling/assisting a suspended member or 

associated person to gain improper access to the 

floor; (iv) gaining/enabling improper access to the 

floor; (v) effecting or attempting to effect a 

transaction with no public outcry; (vi) improper use 

of the runners’ aisle; (vii) trading in the aisle; (viii) 

impermissible use of member phones; (ix) returning 

late or failing to return a visitor badge; and (x) DPM 

failure to activate or deactivate RAES. 

10 In approving this proposed rule change, the 

Commission notes that it has considered the 

proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, 

and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 

11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and 78f(b)(6). 

13 17 CFR 240.19d–1(c)(2). 

14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

15 17 CFR 240.19d–1(c)(2). 

16 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30– 

3(a)(44). 

4.20); (7) failure to provide prior capital 

withdrawal notice (Rule 15c3–1(e) 

under the Act); and (8) failure to 

provide post capital withdrawal notice 

(Rule 15c3–1(e) under the Act). The 

Exchange believes that it will be able to 

carry out its regulatory responsibility 

more quickly and efficiently by 

incorporating these violations into its 

MRP. 

The Exchange has also proposed to 

increase the fine levels for certain 

violations.4 The Exchange believes that 

the current fine levels for such 

violations are too low, given the serious 

nature of such offenses, and that the 

proposed increases are necessary to be 

an effective deterrent against future 

violations and a just penalty for such 

violations. Furthermore, the Exchange 

has proposed to extend the surveillance 

period for many of the violations to a 

24-month rolling period from a 12- 

month period.5 The Exchange believes 

that increasing the surveillance period 

will serve as an effective deterrent to 

future violative conduct. The Exchange 

also proposed a few other technical 

corrections to its MRP. 

The Exchange proposed to establish a 

rolling 24-month look-back period for 

all of their trading and decorum 

violation offenses. In addition, the 

Exchange proposed to establish fixed 

fine levels for Class A and Class B 

Offenses.6 For Class A Offenses, CBOE 

will now assess a fine of $1,000 for the 

first violation, $2,500 for the second 

violation, and $5,000 for the third 

violation. The Exchange is also 

proposing to delete the reference to 

‘‘Subsequent Offenses’’ for Class A 

Offenses.7 For Class B Offenses, CBOE 

is proposing to assess a fine of $250 for 

the first offense, $500 for the second 

offense, $1,000 for the third offense, and 

$2,500 for any subsequent offenses.8

The Exchange proposes to change the 

classification of a market maker failing 

to respond to a request for a market by 

an Order Book Official or a PAR Official 

from a Class B Offense to a Class A 

Offense due to the nature of this 

violation. The Exchange is also 

proposing to remove obsolete or 

duplicative violations from the list of 

Class A and Class B Offenses.9

The Commission finds that the 

proposal is consistent with the 

requirements of the Act and the rules 

and regulations thereunder applicable to 

a national securities exchange.10 In 

particular, the Commission believes that 

the proposal is consistent with Section 

6(b)(5) of the Act,11 which requires that 

the rules of an exchange be designed to, 

among other things, protect investors 

and the public interest. The 

Commission also believes that the 

proposal is consistent with Sections 

6(b)(1) and 6(b)(6) of the Act,12 which 

require that the rules of an exchange 

enforce compliance with, and provide 

appropriate discipline for, violations of 

Commission and Exchange rules. 

Furthermore, the Commission believes 

that the proposed changes to the MRP 

should strengthen the Exchange’s ability 

to carry out its oversight and 

enforcement responsibilities as a selfregulatory organization in cases where 

full disciplinary proceedings are 

unsuitable in view of the minor nature 

of the particular violation. Therefore, 

the Commission finds that the proposal 

is consistent with the public interest, 

the protection of investors, or otherwise 

in furtherance of the purposes of the 

Act, as required by Rule 19d–1(c)(2) 

under the Act,13 which governs minor 

rule violation plans. 

In approving this proposed rule 

change, the Commission in no way 

minimizes the importance of 

compliance with CBOE rules and all 

other rules subject to the imposition of 

fines under the MRP. The Commission 

believes that the violation of any selfregulatory organization’s rules, as well 

as Commission rules, is a serious matter. 

However, the MRP provides a 

reasonable means of addressing rule 

violations that do not rise to the level of 

requiring formal disciplinary 

proceedings, while providing greater 

flexibility in handling certain violations. 

The Commission expects that CBOE will 

continue to conduct surveillance with 

due diligence and make a determination 

based on its findings, on a case-by-case 

basis, whether a fine of more or less 

than the recommended amount is 

appropriate for a violation under the 

MRP or whether a violation requires 

formal disciplinary action under CBOE 

Rules 17.1–17.14. 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 14 and Rule 

19d–1(c)(2) under the Act,15 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–CBOE–2009– 

037), as amended, be, and hereby is, 

approved and declared effective. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.16

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–19892 Filed 8–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES