Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 209 / Wednesday, October 29, 2014 / Notices 64421 

1 15 U.S.C. 78e. 

2See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72661 

(July 23, 2014), 79 FR 44070 (‘‘Notice). The 

Commission notes that Section 5 of the Exchange 

Act did not require publication of AMSE’s 

exemption application. The Commission 

determined, in its discretion, to publish the Notice 

in order to solicit the views of interested persons 

on AMSE’s exemption application. 

3 15 U.S.C. 78e. 

4For more detail on AMSE’s proposed system, 

see AMSE’s full exemption application and 

Continued 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

Submission for Review: OPM 1655, 

Application for Senior Administrative 

Law Judge, and OPM 1655–A, 

Geographic Preference Statement for 

Senior Administrative Law Judge 

Applicant 

AGENCY: Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: 30-day notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Administrative Law 

Judge Program Office, Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) offers the 

general public and other federal 

agencies the opportunity to comment on 

an information collection request (ICR) 

3206–0248, OPM 1655, Application for 

Senior Administrative Law Judge, and 

OPM 1655–A, Geographic Preference 

Statement for Senior Administrative 

Law Judge Applicant. OPM is soliciting 

comments for this collection under 44 

U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D) and 5 CFR 

1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.10(a). The 

information collection was previously 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 1, 2014 at 79 FR 44872 allowing 

for a 60-day public comment period. No 

comments were received for this 

information collection. The purpose of 

this notice is to allow an additional 30 

days for public comments. 

DATES: Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted until November 28, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments on 

the proposed information collection to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management Budget, 

725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the 

Office of Personnel Management or sent 

via electronic mail to oira_submission@

omb.eop.gov or faxed to (202) 395–6974. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A 

copy of the proposed information 

collection, with applicable supporting 

documentation, may be obtained by 

contacting the Administrative Law 

Judge Office, Office of Personnel 

Management, 1900 E Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20415, Attention: 

Juanita H. Love, ALJ Program Manager 

or sent via electronic mail to 

juanita.love@opm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office 

of Management and Budget is 

particularly interested in comments 

that: 

1. Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

3. Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

4. Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submissions 

of responses. 

OPM 1655, Application for Senior 

Administrative Law Judge, and OPM 

1655–A, Geographic Preference 

Statement for Senior Administrative 

Law Judge Applicant, are used by 

retired Administrative Law Judges 

seeking reemployment on a temporary 

and intermittent basis to complete 

hearings of one or more specified case(s) 

in accordance with the Administrative 

Procedure Act of 1946. OPM proposes to 

revise the information collection to 

more clearly state, in the form 

instructions, the licensure requirement 

for appointment as an ALJ; to eliminate 

an obsolete reference to the OF 612, 

Optional Application for Federal 

Employment, which OPM canceled on 

June 13, 2011, see 76 FR 31998; to 

reference a full list of the Privacy Act 

routine uses applicable to this 

information collection; to update 

geographic locations; and to make 

technical changes to citations and 

terminology. 

Analysis 

Agency: Administrative Law Judge 

Program Office, Office of Personnel 

Management. 

Title: OPM 1655, Application for 

Senior Administrative Law Judge, and 

OPM 1655–A, Geographic Preference 

Statement for Senior Administrative 

Law Judge Applicant. 

OMB Number: 3206–0248. 

Frequency: Annually. 

Affected Public: Federal 

Administrative Law Judge Retirees. 

Number of Respondents: 

Approximately 150—OPM 1655/

Approximately 200—OPM 1655–A. 

Estimated Time per Respondent: 

Approximately 30–45 Minutes—OPM 

1655/Approximately 15–25 Minutes— 

OPM 1655–A. 

Total Burden Hours: Estimated 94 

hours—OPM 1655/Estimated 67 hours— 

OPM 1655–A. 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

Katherine Archuleta, 

Director. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25688 Filed 10–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–43–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–73419; File No. 10–214] 

Automated Matching Systems 

Exchange, LLC; Order Instituting 

Proceedings To Determine Whether To 

Grant or Deny an Application for an 

Exemption From Registration as a 

National Securities Exchange Under 

Section 5 of the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934 

October 23, 2014. 

I. Introduction 

On July 7, 2014, Automated Matching 

Systems Exchange, LLC (‘‘AMSE’’) filed 

with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) an 

application seeking a limited volume 

exemption under Section 5 of the 

Securities Exchange Act (‘‘Exchange 

Act’’) from registration as a national 

securities exchange under Section 6 of 

the Exchange Act.1 Notice of AMSE’s 

exemption application was published 

for comment in the Federal Register on 

July 29, 2014.2 Although Section 5 of 

the Exchange Act does not require the 

Commission to institute proceedings on 

whether to grant or deny AMSE’s 

exemption application, the Commission 

has determined, in its discretion, to 

institute such proceedings in order to 

solicit further the views of interested 

persons on AMSE’s exemption 

application. This order institutes 

proceedings to determine whether to 

grant or deny the exemption 

application. 

II. Description of AMSE’s System 

AMSE proposes to conduct business 

in reliance upon an exemption from 

registration as a national securities 

exchange pursuant to Section 5 of the 

Exchange Act.3 In general, AMSE seeks 

to operate as an exchange for alternative 

trading systems.4 AMSE proposes to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

64422 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 209 / Wednesday, October 29, 2014 / Notices 

Exhibits, which are published with the Notice on 

the Commission’s Web site at http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/other.shtml. The Commission notes that 

alternative trading systems are securities markets 

that meet the definition of exchange under the 

Exchange Act. Regulation ATS established an 

alternative regulatory regime for securities markets 

by giving them the choice to register as exchanges, 

or to register as broker-dealers and comply with 

Regulation ATS. See Securities Exchange Act 

Release No. 40760 (December 8, 1998), 63 FR 

70844, 70847 (December 22, 1998) (‘‘Regulation 

ATS Adopting Release’’). Rule 300 of Regulation 

ATS defines an alternative trading system to mean 

‘‘any organization, association, person, group of 

persons, or system: (1) That constitutes, maintains, 

or provides a market place or facilities for bringing 

together purchasers and sellers of securities or for 

otherwise performing with respect to securities the 

functions commonly performed by a stock exchange 

within the meaning of [Rule 3b–16]; and (2) That 

does not: (i) Set rules governing the conduct of 

subscribers other than the conduct of such 

subscribers trading on such organization, 

association, person, group of persons, or system; or 

(ii) Discipline subscribers other than by exclusion 

from trading.’’ See 17 CFR 242.300(a). 

5 15 U.S.C. 78e. 

6 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(1). 

7 17 CFR 240.3b–16. 

8See Regulation ATS Adopting Release, 63 FR at 

70898–70901 (discussing the Commission’s revised 

interpretation of the ‘‘exchange’’ definition). Among 

other things, the Commission stated that ‘‘the first 

essential element of an exchange is the bringing 

together of orders of multiple buyers and sellers.’’ 

Id. at 70900. 

operate solely on an ‘‘off-order-book’’ 

trading basis. AMSE does not intend to 

have a physical exchange trading floor, 

centralized order book, or specialists or 

market makers with affirmative and 

negative market making obligations. 

Each member of AMSE would maintain 

its own automated matching system or 

electronic order book. Each member of 

AMSE would adopt its own rules 

governing the execution and priority of 

orders on its system. Trades would 

occur when an order to buy and an 

order to sell match on a member’s 

electronic order book. Each member 

would report its transactions to AMSE 

at such intervals as required by AMSE. 

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether 

To Grant or Deny the Exemption 

Application and Grounds for Denial 

Under Consideration 

The Commission is instituting 

proceedings to determine whether 

AMSE’s exemption application should 

be granted or denied. Institution of such 

proceedings is appropriate at this time 

in view of the legal and policy issues 

raised by the exemption application. 

Institution of proceedings does not 

indicate that the Commission has 

reached any conclusions with respect to 

any of the issues involved. Rather, as 

described in greater detail below, the 

Commission seeks and encourages 

interested persons to provide additional 

comment on the exemption application. 

The Commission is providing notice 

of the grounds for denial under 

consideration. Section 5 of the Exchange 

Act allows the Commission to exempt 

an exchange from the requirements of 

exchange registration if ‘‘in the opinion 

of the Commission, by reason of the 

limited volume of transactions effected 

on such exchange, it is not practicable 

and not necessary or appropriate in the 

public interest or for the protection of 

investors to require such registration.’’ 5

Section 3(a)(1) of the Exchange Act 6

defines an ‘‘exchange’’ to be ‘‘any 

organization, association, or group of 

persons, whether incorporated or 

incorporated, which constitutes, 

maintains, or provides a market place or 

facilities for bringing together 

purchasers and sellers of securities or 

for otherwise performing with respect to 

securities the functions commonly 

performed by a stock market as that 

term is generally understood, and 

includes the market place and facilities 

maintained by such exchange.’’ Rule 

3b–16 under the Exchange Act 7 further 

provides that ‘‘[a]n organization, 

association, or group of persons shall be 

considered to constitute, maintain, or 

provide ‘a market place or facilities for 

bringing together purchasers and sellers 

of securities or for otherwise performing 

with respect to securities the functions 

commonly performed by a stock 

exchange,’ as those terms are used in 

Section 3(a)(1) of the Act, (15 U.S.C. 

78c(a)(1)), if such organization, 

association, or group of persons: (1) 

Brings together the orders of securities 

of multiple buyers and sellers; and (2) 

Uses established, non-discretionary 

methods (whether by providing a 

trading facility or by setting rules) under 

which such orders interact with each 

other, and the buyers and sellers 

entering such orders agree to the terms 

of the trade.’’ 

As noted above, trades would occur 

on the separate systems of the 

individual members of AMSE. As 

described in the AMSE exemption 

application, it does not appear that the 

orders of the individual members of 

AMSE would interact with one another 

on any AMSE system, but rather on each 

distinct and separate system of AMSE’s 

members. That is, it does not appear 

that any AMSE system would operate as 

an exchange by bringing together 

purchasers and sellers of securities. As 

a result, the Commission is concerned 

that AMSE’s exemption application 

does not meet a key threshold 

requirement for being granted an 

exemption from exchange registration— 

namely, that the applicant actually be 

an ‘‘exchange’’ as defined under Section 

3(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 

3b–16 thereunder.8

Accordingly, the Commission believes 

that it is appropriate at this time to issue 

this order to institute proceedings to 

determine whether to grant or deny the 

exemption application on the grounds 

that the applicant does not meet the 

definition of an ‘‘exchange’’ under 

Section 3(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and 

Rule 3b–16 thereunder. 

IV. Procedure: Request for Written 

Comments 

The Commission requests written 

views, data, and arguments with respect 

to the concerns identified above as well 

as other relevant concerns. Such 

comments should be submitted by 

November 19, 2014. Rebuttal comments 

should be submitted by December 3, 

2014. Although there do not appear to 

be any issues relevant to a grant or 

denial of the exemption application 

which would be facilitated by an oral 

presentation of views, data, and 

arguments, the Commission will 

consider any request for an opportunity 

to make an oral presentation. 

Comments may be submitted by any 

of the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/other.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number 

10–214 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number 10–214. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/other.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the exemptive 

application that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

exemptive application 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 Web site viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 209 / Wednesday, October 29, 2014 / Notices 64423 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72706 (July 

29, 2014) (the ‘‘Proposing Release’’), 79 FR 45546 

(August 5, 2014). 

4See Letters to Secretary, Commission, from 

Tamara K. Salmon, Senior Associate Counsel, 

Investment Company Institute (‘‘ICI’’), dated August 

19, 2014 (the ‘‘ICI Letter’’); David L. Cohen, 

Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, 

Securities Industry and Financial Markets 

Association (‘‘SIFMA’’), dated August 21, 2014 (the 

‘‘SIFMA Letter’’); Dave A. Sanchez (‘‘Sanchez’’), 

dated August 25, 2014 (the ‘‘Sanchez Letter’’); 

Michael Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer, Bond 

Dealers of America (‘‘BDA’’), dated August 26, 2014 

(the ‘‘BDA Letter’’); Anonymous Attorney, dated 

August 26, 2014 (the ‘‘Anonymous Attorney 

Letter’’); Nathan R. Howard, Counsel, National 

Association of Independent Public Finance 

Advisors (‘‘NAIPFA’’), dated August 26, 2014 (the 

‘‘NAIPFA Letter’’); Cristeena G. Naser, Vice 

President, American Bankers Association (‘‘ABA’’), 

dated August 26, 2014 (the ‘‘ABA Letter’’); and 

Joshua Cooperman, Cooperman Associates 

(‘‘Cooperman’’), dated August 30, 2014 (the 

‘‘Cooperman Letter’’). 

5See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from 

Michael L. Post, Deputy General Counsel, MSRB, 

dated October 17, 2014 (the ‘‘MSRB Response 

Letter’’), available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/ 

sr-msrb-2014-06/msrb201406-9.pdf. 

6See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from 

Michael L. Post, Deputy General Counsel, MSRB, 

dated October 17, 2014 (the ‘‘MSRB Amendment 

Letter’’), available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/ 

sr-msrb-2014-06/msrb201406-10.pdf. In 

Amendment No. 1, the MSRB partially amended the 

text of the original proposed rule change to (i) 

revise paragraphs .01 and .02 of the Supplementary 

Material to Rule G–44 to expand the applicability 

of the provision, requiring a municipal advisor’s 

written supervisory procedures to address how its 

supervision is adequate even without having 

separate supervisors, to account for instances of 

self-supervision that may occur in firms that are not 

sole proprietorships; (ii) amend the text of Rule G– 

44(e) to reference Rule G–8(h)(v)(A)–(E) rather than 

Rule G–8(h)(iii); and (iii) amend the text of Rule G– 

9(k) to reference Rule 15Ba1–8(d) under the Act 

rather than Rule 15a1–8(d) under the Act. 

7See supra note 3. 

8 Id. 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. 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 

publicly available. All submissions 

should refer to File Number 10–214 and 

should be submitted on or before 

November 19, 2014. Rebuttal comments 

should be submitted by December 3, 

2014. 

By the Commission. 

Kevin M. O’Neill, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25675 Filed 10–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–73415; File No. SR–MSRB– 

2014–06] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Municipal Securities Rulemaking 

Board; Notice of Filing of Amendment 

No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated 

Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, 

as Modified by Amendment No. 1, 

Consisting of Proposed New Rule G– 

44, on Supervisory and Compliance 

Obligations of Municipal Advisors; 

Proposed Amendments to Rule G–8, 

on Books and Records To Be Made by 

Brokers, Dealers and Municipal 

Securities Dealers; and Proposed 

Amendments to Rule G–9, on 

Preservation of Records 

October 23, 2014. 

I. Introduction 

On July 24, 2014, the Municipal 

Securities Rulemaking Board (the 

‘‘MSRB’’ or ‘‘Board’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(the ‘‘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 consisting of proposed new Rule 

G–44, on supervisory and compliance 

obligations of municipal advisors and 

proposed amendments to Rule G–8, on 

books and records to be made by 

brokers, dealers and municipal 

securities dealers, and proposed 

amendments to Rule G–9, on 

preservation of records. The proposed 

rule change was published for comment 

in the Federal Register on August 5, 

2014.3

The Commission received eight 

comment letters on the proposal.4 On 

October 17, 2014, the MSRB responded 

to the comments 5 and filed Amendment 

No. 1 to the proposed rule change.6 The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on Amendment No. 1 

to the proposed rule change from 

interested persons and is approving the 

proposed rule change, as modified by 

Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated 

basis. 

II. Description of the Proposed Rule 

Change 

As further described in the Proposing 

Release, the MSRB states that the 

purpose of the proposed rule change is 

to establish supervisory and compliance 

obligations of municipal advisors when 

engaging in municipal advisory 

activities. Proposed Rule G–44 utilizes a 

primarily principles-based approach to 

supervision and compliance in order to, 

among other things, accommodate the 

diversity of the municipal advisor 

population, including small and singleperson entities. Proposed Rule G–44 is 

accompanied by proposed amendments 

to Rules G–8 and G–9 to establish 

fundamental books-and-records 

requirements for municipal advisors, 

including those related to their 

supervisory and compliance 

obligations.7

Proposed Rule G–44 

In the Proposing Release, the MSRB 

stated that proposed Rule G–44 follows 

a widely accepted model in the 

securities industry consisting of a 

reasonably designed supervisory system 

complemented by the designation of a 

chief compliance officer (‘‘CCO’’). The 

proposed rule draws on aspects of 

existing supervision and compliance 

regulation under other regimes, 

including those for broker-dealers under 

rules of the MSRB and Financial 

Industry Regulatory Authority 

(‘‘FINRA’’) and for investment advisers 

under the Investment Advisers Act of 

1940 (‘‘Advisers Act’’).8

In summary, proposed Rule G–44 

would require: 

• A supervisory system reasonably 

designed to achieve compliance with 

applicable securities laws; 

• Written supervisory procedures; 

• The designation of one or more 

municipal advisor principals to be 

responsible for supervision; 

• Compliance processes reasonably 

designed to achieve compliance with 

applicable securities laws; 

• An annual certification regarding 

those compliance processes; 

• The designation of a CCO to 

administer those compliance processes; 

and 

• At least annual reviews of 

compliance policies and supervisory 

procedures. 

The proposed amendments to Rules 

G–8 and G–9, in summary, would 

require each municipal advisor to make 

and keep records of its: 

• Written supervisory procedures; 

• Designations of persons as 

responsible for supervision; 

• Written compliance policies; 

• Designations of persons as CCO; 

• Reviews of compliance policies and 

supervisory procedures; and 

• Annual certifications regarding 

compliance processes. 

Paragraph (a) of proposed Rule G–44 

is the core provision, which would 

require all municipal advisors to 

establish, implement and maintain a 

system to supervise their municipal 

advisory activities and those of their 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES