Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by NASD, Inc. Relating to Amendments to Forms U-4 and U-5

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-41326; File No. SR-NASD-98-96]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule

Change by NASD, Inc. Relating to Amendments to Forms U-4 and U-5

April 22, 1999.

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that

on December 18, 1998, the National Association of Securities Dealers,

Inc. (``NASD'' or ``Association''), through its wholly owned subsidiary

NASD Regulation, Inc. (``NASD Regulation'' or ``NASDR''), filed with

the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the

proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which

Items have been prepared by NASD Regulation. On March 30, 1999, NASD

Regulation submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\

NASD Regulation submitted Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change

on April 7, 1999.\4\ On April 15, 1999, NASD Regulation submitted

Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission is

publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change,

as amended, from interested persons.

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

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

\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

\3\ See letter from John M. Ramsay, Vice President and Deputy

General Counsel, NASD Regulation, to Katherine A. England, Assistant

Director, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, dated March 30,

1999. In Amendment No. 1, NASD Regulation amended the rule filing by

adding information about changes to four disclosure questions on

Forms U-4 and U-5 (``Amendment No. 1'').

\4\ See letter from John M. Ramsay, Vice President and Deputy

General Counsel, NASD Regulation, to Katherine A. England, Assistant

Director, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, dated April 7,

1999. In Amendment No. 2, NASD Regulation added information about

the implementation and effective dates of the WEB CRD system and

made minor changes to clarify some of the text (``Amendment No.

2'').

\5\ See letter from John M. Ramsay, Vice President and Deputy

General Counsel, NASD Regulation, to Katherine A. England, Assistant

Director, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, dated April 15,

1999. In Amendment No. 3, NASD Regulation made a minor textual

change (``Amendment No. 3'').

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

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of

Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

NASDR is proposing to amend the Form U-4, the Uniform Application

for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer, and the Form U-5, the

Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Termination

[[Page 23367]]

(collectively ``Proposed Forms'').\6\ Proposed changes to disclosure

questions on the Proposed Forms are set forth below.\7\ Additions are

italicized; deletions are bracketed.

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

\6\ Copies of the Proposed Forms are attached as Exhibit 4 to

Amendment No. 1 and are available in the Commission's Public

Reference Room and from NASDR by calling 301-590-6142.

\7\ The proposed disclosure questions reflect changes to the

questions on the Forms U-4 and U-5 that were approved by the

Commission on July 5, 1996. In addition, conforming changes were

made to the Disclosure Reporting Pages (``DRPs'') for these

questions.

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

1996 Form U-4 Question 22I(2)

Have you ever been the subject of an investment-related, consumer-

initiated [written] complaint, not otherwise reported under question

22I(1) above, which alleged that you were involved in one or more sales

practice violations, and which complaint was settled for an amount of

$10,000 or more?

1996 Form U-5 Question 14

While employed by or associated with your firm, or in connection

with events that occurred while the individual was employed by or

associated with your firm, was the individual:

A. convicted of or did the individual plead guilty or nolo

contendere (``no contest'') in a domestic, or foreign or military court

to any felony?

B. charged with any felony?

C. convicted of or did the individual plead guilty or nolo

contendere (``no contest'') in a domestic, foreign or military court to

a misdemeanor involving: investments or an investment-related business,

or any fraud, false statements or omissions, wrongful taking of

property, bribery, perjury, forgery, counterfeiting, extortion, or a

conspiracy to commit any of these offenses?

D. charged with a misdemeanor specified in 14(C)?

1996 Form U-5 Question 15

While employed by or associated with your firm, or in connection

with events that occurred while the individual was employed by or

associated with your firm, was the individual involved in any

disciplinary action by a domestic or foreign governmental body or self-

regulatory organization (other than those designated as a ``minor rule

violation'' under a plan approved by the U.S. Securities and Exchange

Commission) with jurisdiction over the investment-related businesses?

1996 Form U-5 Question 17

A: In connection with events that occurred while the individual was

employed by or associated with your firm, was the individual:

(1) named as a respondent/defendant in an investment-related,

consumer-initiated arbitration or civil litigation which alleged that

the individual was involved in one or more sales practice violations

and which:

(a) is still pending, or;

(b) resulted in an arbitration award or civil judgment against the

individual, regardless of amount, or,

(c) was settled for an amount of $10,000 or more?[, or;]

(2) the subject of an investment-related, consumer-initiated

[written] complaint, not otherwise reported under question 17(A)(1)

above, which alleged that the individual was involved in one or more

sales practice violations, and which complaint was settled for an

amount of $10,000 or more?

B. In connection with events that occurred while the individual was

employed by or associated with your firm, [but for a period not to

exceed the most recent twenty-four (24) months of employment,] was the

individual the subject of an investment-related, consumer-initiated

written complaint, not otherwise reported under question 17(A) above,

which:

[(1) alleged that the individual was involved in one or more sales

practice violations and contained a claim for compensatory damages of

$5,000 or more (if no damage amount is alleged, the complaint must be

reported unless the firm has made a good faith determination that the

damages from the alleged conduct would be less than $5,000), or];

(1) would be reportable under question 22I(3)(a) on Form U-4, if

the individual were still employed by your firm, but which has not

previously been reported on the individual's Form U-4 by your firm; or

[(2) alleged that the individual was involved in forgery, theft,

misappropriation or conversion of funds or securities?]

(2) would be reportable under question 22I(3)(b) on Form U-4, if

the individual were still employed by your firm, but which has not

previously been reported on the individual's Form U-4 by your firm.

* * * * *

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

In its filing with the Commission, NASDR included statements

concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and

discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The

text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in

Item IV below. NASDR has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,

B, C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose

On July 5, 1996, the Commission approved amendments to Forms U-4

and U-5 (``1996 Forms'').\8\ These amendments were developed by a task

force of representatives from the NASD the Commission, the North

American Securities Administrators Association (``NASAA''), the

securities industry, and other self-regulatory organizations

(``SROs''). The 1996 Forms were to become effective with the

implementation of a redesigned CRD system that used a network-based

architecture and proprietary software developed by the NASD; members

would submit the 1996 Forms electronically.\9\ The 1996 Forms included

both technical and formatting changes to accommodate the CRD redesign

and substantive changes to the instructions and disclosure questions.

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

\8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37407 (July 5, 1996), 61

FR 36595 (July 11, 1996) (File No. SR-NASD-96-19).

\9\ Id.

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

In 1997, NASDR determined to proceed with a Web-based approach to

the CRD system rather than using a network-based architecture and

proprietary software. This ``Web CRD'' system, which will permit

members to submit the Proposed Forms electronically via NASD

Regulation's World Wide Web site, is currently in development. In 1997,

NASDR and NASAA also determined that it was possible to implement the

changes to the disclosure questions and some of the new instructions

while Web CRD was being developed. Therefore, NASDR submitted Interim

Forms U-4 and U-5 to the Commission in October 1997.\10\ The Interim

Forms included all of the substantive changes to the disclosure

questions and some of the changes to the instructions that were

approved in 1996 and reformatted them in a manner that is compatible

with the current CRD system. In January 1998, the Commission approved

the Interim

[[Page 23368]]

Forms for use until Web CRD is completed.\11\

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

\10\ Securities Exchange Act Release No 39322 (Nov. 13, 1997),

62 FR 62391 (Nov. 21, 1997)(File No SR-NASD-97-78).

\11\ Securities Exchange Act Release No 39562 (Jan. 20, 1998),

63 FR 3942 (Jan. 27, 1998)(File No. SR-NASD-97-78).

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

Due to the differences between the network-based and Web-based

approaches to the CRD system, NASDR proposes additional formatting and

technical changes to the 1996 Forms. These changes are needed to fully

implement the Web CRD system. NASDR believes that the Proposed Forms

will be simpler for member firms to complete than the 1996 Forms. NASAA

approved all of the proposed changes described below at its October 4,

1998, membership meeting.\12\

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

\12\ At this meeting, NASAA also approved changes to certain

disclosure questions on the Proposed Forms. The NASD submitted the

proposed disclosure question changes to its membership for comment.

See Notice To Members 98-101.

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

NASDR has reformatted several sections of the 1996 Forms to

simplify data entry and minimize errors in completing the Forms. First,

the DRPs for the Proposed Forms have been simplified. The 1996 DRPs

elicited more detailed information about reportable events than

previously elicited on DRPs. Regulators had indicated that they needed

this additional detail to make informed licensing and registration

decisions and that the revised DRPs would reduce regulatory requests

for additional information, which invariably prolonged the registration

review and licensing process. However, the 1996 DRPs required that the

additional detail be entered into numerous discrete fields.

While this approach was intended to provide all CRD users with the

additional benefits of maximum flexibility in making queries to and

deriving customized reports from the system, it resulted in

unanticipated practical drawbacks. The most significant drawback was

that the more complex data structure required to support the 1996 DRPs

would cause the system to operate too slowly to meet users' needs.

Theoretically, the 1996 DRP data structure provided the ability to sort

on and create reports using all of the discrete data fields; as a

practical matter, however, the time required to process those queries

and produce those reports was unacceptable. The demands placed on the

system by the generation of routine reports, ad hoc reports containing

numerous discrete data fields, and routine user queries would not allow

for acceptable response times for users. Therefore, following

discussions with NASAA, industry representative, and other regulators,

NASDR reformatted the DRPs by reducing the number of discrete fields

and adding text blocks to simplify the data structure and the data

relationships.

NASDR believes that all of the information necessary for regulators

to make informed registration and licensing decisions will be available

through this revised format. In this regard, the reformatted DRPs

request all of the information requested on the 1996 DRPs. In addition,

this revised format will significantly enhance regulators' ability to

use the Web CRD for regulatory purposes and allow for more efficient

processing of registration-related filings.

Second, the ``other business activities'' DRP on the 1996 Form U-4

is replaced with a separate attachment sheet, which also can be used to

provide additional information about residential history or employment

and personal history. The other business activity section of Question

20B on the 1996 Form U-4 is renumbered as Question 21. (All subsequent

questions are likewise renumbered.) The instructions to Question 21 on

the Proposed Form U-4 list the types of information that must be

provided on the attachment sheet, and includes all of the information

that would have been reported through the DRP.

Third, Sections 11 and 12 on the 1996 Form U-4 and Section 11 on

the 1996 Form U-5 have been reformatted to ensure more accurate

selection of registration categories. The Proposed Forms use matrices

that link SROs and their related registration categories, which will

reduce erroneous requests for registrations that are not available for

a particular SRO. In addition, the instructions on the Proposed Forms

clarify that CRD does not process Investment Adviser Representative and

Agent of the Issuer registrations, although the paper Proposed Forms

contain boxes for such registration. When an individual views the

electronic version of the Proposed Forms on the Web CRD system, the

boxes for these registrations will be shaded and the individual will

not be allowed to select these options. The boxes for these

registrations are included on the paper Proposed Forms solely for the

convenience of states that wish to use the paper Proposed Forms for

these registrations.

The General Instructions regarding the submission of documents on

the 1996 Forms provide that documents are not required to be submitted,

but that the applicant may submit them because documents may be

requested as part of the review process. The Proposed Forms amend this

instruction slightly to conform to the current practice of the states

and SROs by stating that, although documents are not generally required

to be filed with the Forms, it may be necessary to provide them to

clarify or support responses on the Forms.

Finally, the Proposed Forms retain the definitions of

``investigation'' and ``sales practice violations'' that were adopted

with the Interim Forms, with slight changes to punctuation. These

definitions are more precise than the corresponding definitions used in

the 1996 Forms and generally have worked well in practice. In addition,

other technical and conforming amendments are listed in the rule

filing.\13\

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

\13\ The technical and conforming amendments are listed in

Exhibit 2 of the proposed rule change.

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

The rule filing also contains the DRP ``pick lists'' that will

appear for users making electronic filings of the Proposed Forms.\14\

The pick lists will appear for certain discrete fields on the DRPs so

that there will be more consistency in the data entered in those

fields. For example, on the Customer Complaint DRP, when the firm

clicks on the field for ``Litigation Disposition'' the following

choices will appear on the screen: Decision for Applicant, Decision for

Customer, Denied, Dismissed, Judgment (other than monetary), Monetary

Judgment to Applicant, Monetary Judgment to Customer, No Action, Other,

Settled, Withdrawn. The individual submitting the electronic form will

click on one of these choices to fill in the field, rather than having

to manually type in a description of the disposition. Pick lists will

also appear for other fields on the electronic Proposed Forms. In all

pick lists (except states of residence and types of judgments/liens), a

firm may select ``Other'' if none of the choices presented in the pick

list is applicable. The pick lists were developed by NASDR, NASAA, the

Commission, and others. NASDR expects that refinements to the pick

lists will occur in the future, but will not file every change with the

Commission because of the inclusion of the ``Other'' option.

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

\14\ The DRP ``Pick Lists'' are contained in Exhibit 3 of the

proposed rule change.

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

Four disclosure questions on the Proposed Forms also are amended.

These substantive amendments involve: (1) an expansion of the Form U-4

question eliciting information on settled customer complaints to

include those oral complaints involving sales practice allegations that

are settled for $10,000 or more; (2) a modification of the Form U-5

question eliciting information on

[[Page 23369]]

customer complaints to make that reporting requirement consistent with

the parallel question on the Form U-4 (effectively eliminating the

reporting requirement for and permitting the archiving of customer

complaints that are over 24 months old and are not otherwise

reportable); and (3) an expansion of the reporting requirement on the

Form U-5 to include criminal or regulatory actions initiated on the

basis of events that occurred while an individual was employed by the

firm, even if the actions were initiated after the individual had been

terminated.

As NASDR transitions from the current CRD system to Web CRD, there

will be a two week period beginning July 31 and ending August 15, 1999

(the ``System Transition Period''), when neither system will be

available to process Forms.\15\ The System Transition Period is

necessary to complete the final data conversions from current CRD to

Web CRD and to make final preparations for the deployment of Web CRD.

NASDR will not accept the Interim Forms U-4 or U-5 after July 30, 1999.

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

\15\ The Commission is in the process of amending the Forms BD

and BDW so that these forms will be compatible with the Web CRD

system. The Forms BD and BDW will be subject to the same transition

period as the Forms U-4 and U-5.

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

Although Web CRD will not be operational until August 16, 1999,

NASDR is requesting an effective date of August 1, 1999, for Proposed

Forms U-4 and U-5. NASDR is requesting this date principally because it

will accept paper Proposed Forms U-5 submitted during the two week

period beginning August 1, and ending August 15, 1999, provided those

Forms U-5 are submitted to report full terminations (i.e., a

termination of an individual's registration with all SROs and

jurisdictions). In addition, NASDR wants broker-dealers and their

associated persons to have an opportunity to familiarize themselves

with the new forms prior to the deployment of Web CRD on August 16,

1999. NASDR will review all paper Forms U-5 reporting full terminations

that are submitted during the System Transition Period and will provide

notice to appropriate regulators/jurisdictions of any such Forms U-5

that contains disclosure information. This interim measure is necessary

to protect investors (e.g., to help prevent persons who have been

terminated from continuing to engage in securities business) and

provide necessary information to regulators.\16\

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

\16\ NASDR's Public Disclosure Program, which provides

disciplinary and other information about NASD members and their

associated persons, will continue to be available to the public and

regulators during the System Transition Period. Regulators also will

continue to have query access (i.e., read only access) to the

current CRD system during the System Transition Period.

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

NASDR will not accept Proposed Form U-4 applications requesting

registration/licensing until Web CRD becomes operational on August 16,

1999 (even though they will be ``effective'' August 1, 1999). Firms

already have been informed that they must submit new applications for

registration before July 30, 1999, or hold them until August 16,

1999.\17\ Beginning August 16, 1999, all Forms U-4 and U-5 must be

submitted electronically. NASD Regulation has developed a plan to allow

registered persons to transfer their registrations during the System

Transition Period that is based upon the current Temporary Agent

Transfer (``TAT'') program. NASDR has discussed this plan with firms

and with the NASAA and expects to issue a Notice To Members on the

specifics of the program and on other issues relating to the System

Transition Period not later than June 1, 1999.

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

\17\ For more information concerning the CRD Modernization

Update, System Transition Period and electronic filing, use the

NASDR's web site at www.nasdr.com and review the CRD/PD Bulletin,

March 1999, Vol. 6, No. 5.

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

2. Statutory Basis

NASD Regulation believes that the Proposed Forms are consistent

with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) \18\ of the Act, which

requires, among other things, that the Association's rules must be

designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to

promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to

protect investors and the public interest. NASD Regulation believes

that the Proposed Forms are consistent with the NASD's authority to

adopt appropriate qualifications and registration requirements for

persons associated with NASD members or applicants for NASD membership.

Article V, Section 2 of the NASD By-Laws authorizes the Board to

prescribe the form used by any person who wishes to make application

for registration with the NASD. NASD Regulation believes that the

Proposed Forms will make the filing of information with CRD easier and

more efficient while continuing to provide complete information for use

by regulators, SROs, and firms conducting pre-hire checks.

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

\18\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).

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

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

NASD Regulation does not believe that the proposed rule change will

result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or

appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed

Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

NASD Regulation solicited member comment on the substantive changes

to Form U-4 and U-5 disclosure questions in Notice To Members 98-

101.\19\ NASD Regulation received 15 comments in response to the

Notice.\20\

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

\19\ A copy of the Notice is attached at Exhibit 5 to Amendment

No. 1.

\20\ The commenters are American Express Financial Advisors,

Inc.; AmSouth Investment Services, Inc.; Daniel Barba; Charles

Schwab & Co., Inc.; Martin L. Feinberg; William E. Graeff; John G.

Kinnard & Co.; Ted S. Meilke; Merrill Lynch; Metropolitan Life

Insurance Company; National Association of Investment Professionals;

Paine Webber; Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.; Regional

Investment Bankers Association; Securities Industry Association

Self-Regulation and Supervisory Practices Committee. The comments

from persons associated with the John G. Kinnard & Co. are treated

as one comment because they are identical. Copies of the letters are

attached as Exhibit 6 to Amendment No. 1.

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

Five commenters were in favor of or had no objection to the

proposed rule change requiring the reporting of settlements of oral

sales practice complaints and eight were opposed. The Securities

Industry Association's (``SIA'') Self-Regulations and Supervisory

Practices Committee was among the eight commenters opposing the

proposed change. The SIA expressed concern about the proposed change on

the basis that: (1) it is inconsistent with the Commission's revised

proposed books and records rules, which only require the reporting of

customer-initiated complaints that are written; (2) a firm may be more

vulnerable to a defamation claim brought by a former employee if there

is no writing to substantiate the oral customer complaint that resulted

in the settlement of $10,000 or more; and (3) it is currently unclear

which types of disputes would give rise to a reportable offense and

therefore, some execution adjustments might unintentionally be

characterized as a sales practice matter.

While NASDR appreciates the SIA's concern, it disagrees with the

SIA's argument that the proposed change requires reporting of oral

complaints. On the contrary, the proposed change would require the

reporting of settlements of $10,000 or more of a customer complaint

(written or oral) alleging a sales practice violation. NASDR believes

that this proposed change is consistent with the Commission's proposed

books and

[[Page 23370]]

records rules \21\ because the question addresses the reporting of the

settlement and not the oral complaint. Moreover, the NASD staff

believes that settlements of such amounts may be indicative of

potential sales practice abuses (regardless of whether the complaint is

made orally or in writing) and is therefore consistent with one of the

purposes underlying the Commission's proposed rules, which is to assist

regulators in determining whether an associated person has engaged or

is continuing to engage in securities violations such as abusive sales

practices. In addition, as the SIA acknowledges, firms are unlikely to

settle a customer sales practice complaint for $10,000 or more without

something in writing. Finally, NASDR staff and representatives of NASAA

are prepared to issue interpretive guidance that would provide greater

clarity in the area of what constitutes a sales practice violation (as

opposed, for example, to a disagreement over an execution that does not

involve an alleged rule violation) and to provide guidance to firms on

procedures they should follow to support the reporting of these items.

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

\21\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40518 (Oct. 2, 1998),

63 FR 54404 (Oct 9, 1998).

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

Eight commenters addressed the proposed changes to the Form U-5

questions regarding the expanded reporting of regulatory and criminal

actions. Under the revised question, firms would be required to report

regulatory and criminal actions that were initiated after a registered

person has left the firm, if the firm receives actual notice of such

actions. The current question requires the reporting of these matters

only while the registered person is employed by the firm. Commenters

generally expressed concern about having to continually monitor former

employees to meet this reporting requirement. Comments therefore

requested that ``actual notice'' of the initiation of a criminal or

regulatory event be defined through interpretive guidance before or in

conjunction with the question change. Three commenters also requested

that the proposed change be limited to criminal or regulatory events

that are directly related to the former employee's employment with the

member and that actual notice be defined as written notice to a

principal responsible for making regulatory filings or other

appropriate person in the legal or compliance department. Two

commenters stated that reporting under these questions should be time

limited, e.g., to two years after termination.

NASDR agrees that the issuance of interpretive guidance is

appropriate. NASDR staff has discussed such interpretive guidance with

NASAA and has reached an agreement in principle regarding an

interpretation. This interpretation will state that firms are not

obligated to report events unless they receive actual notice. In this

context, actual notice would mean express notice--That is, a

communication by the responsible agency/authority regarding the

initiation of a criminal or regulatory action directly to a

representative of the firm who is aware of the Form U-5 reporting

requirement or should be aware of such requirement because such person

has official responsibility for receiving such notice. This

interpretation would address a majority of commenters' concerns;

however, it does not address the time limit on Form U-5 reporting that

was suggested by some commenters. Nevertheless, NASDR staff agrees that

the establishment of an outside time limit for reporting on Form U-5

should be explored and has begun discussions with NASAA on this issue.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing

for Commission Action

Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the

Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may

designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to

be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to

which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

(A) by order approve such proposed rule change, or

(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule

change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing including whether the proposed rule

is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should

file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. 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 elating 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 will also be available for

inspection and copying at the principal office of the NASD. All

submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASD-98-96 and should be

submitted by May 17, 1999.

For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,

pursuant to delegated authority.\22\

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

\22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

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

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 99-10807 Filed 4-29-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-M