[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66164-66167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32825]
[[Page 66164]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-39421; File No. SR-NASD-97-77]
Self-Regulatory Commission Organizations; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change by the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. Relating to the Arbitration of Employment Discrimination Claims
December 10, 1997.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''), 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1), notice is hereby given that on October
17, 1997,\1\ the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'' or ``Association'') 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 the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NASD filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule filing
on November 21, 1997, the substance of which is incorporated into
the notice. See letter from Joan C. Conley, Corporate Secretary,
NASD Regulation, to Katherine A. England, Assistant Director, Market
Regulation, Commission, dated November 20, 1997 (``Amendment No.
1'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organizations Statement of the Terms of Substance of
the Proposed Rule Change
NASD Regulation is proposing to amend Rule 10201 of the NASD's Code
of Arbitration Procedure (``Code'') to remove the requirement to
arbitrate claims of statutory employment discrimination. Below is the
text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in italics;
proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *
CODE OF ARBITRATION PROCEDURE
10200. INDUSTRY AND CLEARING CONTROVERSIES
10201. Required Submission
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), [Any] a dispute, claim or
controversy eligible for submission under the Rule 10100 Series between
or among members and/or associated persons, and/or certain others,
arising in connection with the business of such member(s) or in
connection with the activities of such associated person(s), or arising
out of the employment or termination of employment of such associated
person(s) with such member, shall be arbitrated under this Code, at the
instance of:
(1) a member against another member;
(2) a member against a person associated with a member or a person
associated with a member against a member; and (3) a person associated
with a member against a person associated with a member.
(b) A claim alleging employment discrimination or sexual harassment
in violation of a statute is not required to be arbitrated. Such a
claim may be arbitrated only if the parties have agreed to arbitrate
it, either before or after the dispute arose.
[(b)] (c) Any dispute, claim or controversy involving an act or
failure to act by a clearing member; a registered clearing agency; or
participants, pledgees, or other persons using the facilities of a
registered clearing agency, under the rules of any registered clearing
agency with which the Association has entered into an agreement to
utilize the Association's arbitration facilities and procedures shall
be arbitrated in accordance with such agreement and the rules of such
registered clearing agency.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and 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
The proposed rule change will modify the current requirement that
associated persons arbitrate all disputes arising out of their
employment or termination of employment with a member broker/dealer.
The proposed rule provides that associated persons are no longer
required, solely by virtue of their association of their registration
with the NASD, to arbitrate claims of statutory employment
discrimination. Associated persons still will be required to arbitrate
other employment-related claims, as well as any business-related claims
involving investors or other persons.
Background
Although most arbitration claims submitted to the NASD involve
disputes between members and customers, a growing number of matters
involve employment-related disputes between members and their
associated persons.\2\ The growth in this area is the result of several
recent court decisions concerning the requirement of persons associated
with a broker/dealer to arbitrate their employment disputes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The number of employment discrimination claims filed with
the NASD rose from 4 to 1991 to 109 in 1996. The latter figure
represents, however, less than 2 percent of all arbitration claims
filed with the NASD in 1996
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirement for associated persons to register with the NASD
arises from Section 15A(g)(3)(B) of the Act, which provides that the
NASD may ``require a natural person associated with a member, or any
class of such natural persons, to be registered with the association in
accordance with procedures so established [by the rules of the
association].'' The registration requirement was made mandatory by
Exchange Act Rule 15b7-1 in 1993.\3\ The NASD, other self-regulatory
organizations (``SROs''), and state regulatory authorities require all
applicants for registration as persons associated with a broker/dealer
(registered representatives, assistant representatives or principals)
to complete and sign the Form U-4, the ``Uniform Application for
Securities Industry Registration or Transfer.'' \4\ Form U-4 requires
registered persons to submit to arbitration any claim that is eligible
under the rules of the organizations with which they register (as
indicated in Item 10 of the Form U-4). The relevant language on the
Form U-4 states:
\3\ 17 C.F.R. 240.15b7-1. The rule provides as follows: ``No
registered broker or dealer shall effect any transaction in, or
induce the purchase or sale of, any security unless any natural
person associated with such broker or dealer who effects or is
involved in effecting such transaction is registered or approved in
accordance with the standards of training, experience, competence,
and other qualification standards (including but not limited to
submitting and maintaining all required forms, paying all required
fees, and passing any required examinations) established by the
rules of any national securities exchange or national securities
association of which such broker or dealer is a member or under the
rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (if it is subject
to the rules of that organization).''
\4\ The Form U-4 was adopted effective October 1, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree to arbitrate any dispute, claim or controversy that may
arise between me and my firm, or a customer, or any other person,
that is required to be arbitrated under the rules, constitutions, or
by-laws of the organizations indicated in Item 10 as may be amended
from time to time and that any
[[Page 66165]]
arbitration award rendered against me may be entered as a judgement
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in any court of competent jurisdiction.\5\
\5\ From page 4 of the Form U-4 as revised in November 1991. A
new version of the Form U-4 was approved by the Commission on July
5, 1996. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37407 (July 5, 1996),
61 FR 36595 (July 11, 1996). Use of the revised form has been
deferred pending related changes to the Central Registration
Depository (``CRD''). Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37994
(November 27, 1996), 61 FR 64549 (December 5, 1996). The substance
of the quoted language was not changed in the revision.
Thus, the Form U-4 incorporates by reference the rules of the SRO with
which the individual is to be registered. NASD Rule 10101 provides as
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
follows:
This Code of Arbitration Procedure is prescribed . . . for the
arbitration of any dispute, claim, or controversy arising out of or
in connection with the business of any member of the Association, or
arising out of the employment or termination of employment of
associated person(s) with any member, with the exception of disputes
involving the insurance business of any member which is also an
insurance company . . . between or among members and associated
persons . . . .
For industry and clearing controversies, Rule 10201 requires that all
matters eligible under Rule 10101 be submitted to arbitration at the
request of any member or associated person.\6\ Rules 10101 and 10201
were amended in 1993 to include the language relating to disputes
``arising out of the employment or termination of employment'' of an
associated person. This language was added in order to clarify that
employment disputes were required to be arbitrated, since a California
court had held that the Code of Arbitration Procedure did not cover
such disputes, but only covered disputes arising out of or in
connection with business transactions.\7\ The Commission found the
amendment to be consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act and
approved the rule change.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As one court explained, ``Section 1 [now Rule 10101] defines
the general universe of issues that may be arbitrated, and Section 8
[now Rule 10201] describes a subset of that universe that must be
arbitrated under the Code.'' Armijo v. Prudential Ins. Co., of Am.,
72 F.3d 793, 798 (10th Cir. 1995).
\7\ Higgins v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. B057028
(Cal. App. Oct. 8, 1991), review denied and decision ordered not
officially published, 1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 57 (1992). The state court
noted the difference between the NYSE rule (at issue in the Supreme
Court's Gilmer decision, discussed below), which refers to disputes
arising out of the employment or termination of employment of an
associated person, and the NASD rule, which at the time did not
contain the phrase relating to employment. A federal court reached
the same conclusion while the rule change was pending approval.
Farrand v. Lutheran Bhd., 993 F.2d 1253 (7th Cir. 1993). The
Association stated in its rule filing that the amendment was a
clarification of existing intent rather than a new policy; some
courts accepted this view, while other courts interpreted the rule
amendment as a change in policy. See Kuehner v. Dickinson & Company,
84 F.3d 316, 320 n.1 (9th Cir. 1996) (describing splits in the
Seventh, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits of this issue).
\8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32802 (August 25, 1993),
58 FR 45932 (August 31, 1993). In its order approving this change
and a related change in the composition of arbitration panels to
hear employment disputes, the Commission recognized that claims
based on allegations of age, sex, or race discrimination, or
relating to sexual harassment, were subject to the arbitration
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past several years, employees have raised several
challenges to the mandatory arbitration of employment discrimination
disputes. Such challenges were addressed by the Supreme Court in Gilmer
v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.\9\ In Gilmer, which involved a person
registered with the New York Stock Exchange, the Court examined many
challenges to the adequacy of arbitration procedures raised by the
registered representative and found that none was sufficient to prevent
the Court from enforcing the representative's agreement, pursuant to
his signing of the Form U-4, to arbitrate his federal age
discrimination claim. Therefore, the Court held that Mr. Gilmer had not
met his burden of showing that Congress intended to preclude
arbitration of claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 500 U.S. 20 (1991). Those challenges included contentions
that anti-discrimination laws are designed to further important
social policies that should be addressed in a public forum, that
arbitration panels may be biased, that discovery is more limited in
arbitration than in court, that arbitrators often do not issue
written opinions, that arbitration procedures do not provide for
broad equitable relief and class actions, and that there is unequal
bargaining power between employers and employees. The Court noted
that most of these contentions were generalized attacks on
arbitration that had been rejected in prior Supreme Court decisions.
Id. at 30.
\10\ Id. at 35. The Court cited its earlier holding that, ``So
long as the prospective litigant effectively may vindicate [his or
her] statutory cause of action in the arbitral forum, the statute
will continue to serve both its remedial and deterrent function.''
500 U.S. at 28, quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-
Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 637 (1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to the Gilmer decision, courts have declined to find a
Constitutional or statutory bar to enforcement of the agreement to
arbitrate contained in the Form U-4.\11\ They have extended the
reasoning of Gilmer to cover disputes arising under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964,\12\ the Americans with Disabilities Act,\13\
and state statutes of similar nature.\14\ Courts also have extended the
application of Gilmer to the NASD, since its rules are similar to the
NYSE rule at issue in Gilmer.\15\ Nevertheless, registered persons and
others have continued to challenge the requirement to arbitrate claims
of statutory employment discrimination.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held
that a registered person's waiver of the right to adjudication in
court through signing of the Form U-4 must be ``knowing'' in order
for the arbitration requirement to be enforced. Prudential Ins. Co.
of Am. v. Lai, 42 F.3d 1299, 1305 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 116
S. Ct. 61 (1995). But see Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Prac.
Litig., 924 F. Supp. 627, 642 (D.N.J. 1996) (``. . . Lai has been
rather extensively criticized''), and cases cited therein.
\12\ See, e.g., Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 939 F.2d
229 (5th Cir. 1991).
\13\ See, e.g., Austin v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc.,
78 F.3d 875, 881 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 432 (1996).
\14\ See, e.g., Kaliden v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 789 F.
Supp. 179, 180 (W.D. Pa. 1991).
\15\ See, e.g., Metz v. Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
Inc., 39 F.3d 1482, 1488 (10th Cir. 1994).
\16\ See, e.g. Commission on Future of Worker-Management
Relations (``Dunlop Commission''), Report and Recommendations 33
n.15 (1994); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Policy
Statement on Mandatory Binding Arbitration of Employment
Discrimination Disputes as a Condition of Employment n.2 (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Task Force Views
In January 1996, the NASD's Arbitration Policy Task Force (``Task
Force'')\17\ released its Report on Securities Arbitration Reform
(``Report''). The Task Force's Report made numerous recommendations to
improve the arbitration process. Since the Report was released, NASD
Regulation has been engaged in a major effort to implement the Task
Force recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The NASD formed the Arbitration Policy Task Force in
September 1994 for the purposes of studying the securities
arbitration process administered by the NASD and of making
suggestions for reform. The Task Force, chaired by David S. Ruder,
former Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, delivered
its Report to the NASD Board in January 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment arbitration was not an area of major focus for the Task
Force.\18\ The Task Force found, however, that such arbitration offers
the advantages of speed and cost that are identified with customer
arbitration, and observed that statutory discrimination claims are
almost always interwoven with industry-specific issues. Moreover, the
Task Force believed that arbitration's equitable approach to dispute
resolution is fully capable of vindicating the important public rights
expressed in the anti-discrimination statutes. The Task Force,
therefore, found compelling reasons to keep employment-related disputes
within NASD arbitration. The Task Force Report recommended that
employment-related disputes, including statutory discrimination claims,
remain eligible for arbitration with certain enumerated enhancements,
many of
[[Page 66166]]
which had been recommended elsewhere in the Report in the context of
customer arbitration.\19\ The NASD intends to implement many of the
recommended enhancements to its arbitration forum in the next year.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The Task Force directed its attention primarily to
customer-member arbitration. See Task Force Report at 123.
\19\ The Task Force noted that employment arbitration, and in
particular the issue of whether cases that raise statutory civil
rights claims should remain subject to predispute arbitration
agreements, is an area in which the law and commentary are rapidly
evolving. Therefore, the Task Force recommended that the NASD
closely monitor developments in employment arbitration and look to
other sources in formulating future recommendations for the
direction the NASD should pursue in this area. Task Force Report at
123 and n.164.
\20\ The Task Force recommended certain changes that would
enhance the NASD's ability to handle employment-related
arbitrations, including expanded arbitrator education, greater
disclosure to registered person, the inclusion of employment-related
disputes in the early neutral evaluation pilot, and development of a
list of documents that parties should produce during discovery for
various kinds of employment-related claims. In addition, the Task
Force felt that its other recommendations relating to early
automatic document production, mediation, simplified arbitration,
punitive damages, and list selection should apply to arbitration of
employment-related disputes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Controversy Surrounding the Issue
In the past year, there has been a great deal of activity and
public discussion about the arbitration of employment discrimination
disputes. In February of 1997, three members of Congress wrote to the
SEC and questioned the authority of the NASD and other SROs to require
arbitration of discrimination claims in employment disputes through an
associated person's signing of the Form U-4.\21\ Legislation was
introduced this year in both the House and the Senate \22\ that would
prohibit employers and employees from entering into predispute
arbitration agreements concerning claims of unlawful employment
discrimination. Under the proposed legislation, the parties could
agree, after a dispute arose, whether to resolve it by arbitration or
to go to court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Letter from Representatives Edward J. Markey, Anna G.
Eshoo, and Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., to Arthur Levitt, Chairman, SEC
(February 3, 1997). With regard to whether the mandatory arbitration
requirement was within the scope of the NASD's authority, the
Commission's response stated that sound arguments could be made on
both sides of the issue. Letter from Chairman Levitt to
Representative Markey (March 17, 1997). The Commission acknowledged
that the NASD rule requiring registered persons to arbitrate
employment disputes was approved by the Commission as being
consistent with the Act, and that it would not be unreasonable to
conclude that SROs do have the authority to mandate the arbitration
of discrimination claims, provided that fair procedures are in
place. The response also acknowledged the concerns of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, members of Congress, and others
about the special role of civil rights legislation. The Commission
concluded that, given the self-regulatory scheme of the Act, it
would be premature for the Commission to take any action, and
suggested that it would defer expressing any conclusions until the
matter was sent to the Commission by the NASD in the form of a
proposed rule change.
\22\ H.R. 983 and S. 63, 105th Cong. (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NASD has received letters on this subject from groups with
differing points of view, such as the Securities Industry Association,
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (``EEOC''), the National
Women's Law Center, the Women's Legal Defense Fund, the American Civil
Liberties Union, the National Employment Lawyers Association, the
National Association of Investment Professionals, several members of
Congress, and attorneys representing parties in employment disputes.
Recent NASD Actions
To gather a wide assortment of views on this issue, NASD staff met
with various groups and individuals, including national and regional
member firms, members of NASD Regulation District Committees, attorneys
representing employees and attorneys representing employers in
employment litigation, members of the Bar of the City of New York Labor
and Employment Committee, and staff of the New York Stock Exchange. In
general, the groups from or representing the securities industry
believed the current practice is fair, and that it is more cost-
effective for all parties than going to court. The groups representing
employees were unanimous in believing that the NASD and other SROs
should remove the requirement for registered persons to arbitrate
employment discrimination disputes as a condition of registration in
the industry.
Many persons meeting with NASD staff recommended that the SROs
adopt the Due Process Protocol endorsed by the American Bar Association
and various dispute resolution organizations. Some attendees expressed
a willingness to work with the SROs in revising the process if
arbitration of discrimination claims were made voluntary.
In May 1997, NASD Regulation formed an Advisory Committee to assist
it in reaching a decision on the outstanding questions. The Advisory
Committee consisted of six persons of varying and distinguished
backgrounds. The Advisory Committee held a meeting in Washington, D.C.
on June 16, 1997 and invited to speak representatives of civil rights
organizations, the EEOC, general counsels of member firms, attorneys
who represent employees, representatives of employee organizations, and
attorneys who represent member firms. Afterward, the Advisory Committee
spoke with neutral experts in the alternative dispute resolution field,
and discussed the issues with NASD management and staff.
After consideration of all the views presented, and in light of the
public perception that civil rights claims may present important legal
issues better dealt with in a judicial setting, the NASD determined
that the appropriate action was to remove the arbitration requirement
for such claims, but to further improve the forum so that it is viewed
by both registered employees and firms as the fairest and most
efficient forum for resolving all employment disputes. In August 1997,
proposals were presented to the NASD Regulation and NASD Boards, which
authorized the proposed rule change.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The text of the proposed rule change was provided to the
NASD Regulation Board at its meeting on September 22, 1997, and the
NASD Board had an opportunity to review the final rule language at
its meeting on October 9, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Details of the Proposed Rule Change
Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule adds a prefatory phrase
indicating that the requirement to arbitrate employment disputes
contains an exception, set forth in paragraph (b).
New paragraph (b) provides that claims alleging employment
discrimination or sexual harassment in violation of a statute are not
required to be arbitrated by NASD rules. This means that such claims
may be filed in the appropriate court, if the employee chooses to do so
and is not under a separate predispute obligation to arbitrate the
dispute.\24\ An employee also may agree to arbitrate after a dispute
arises, and may choose to do so for a number of reasons.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The NASD takes no position regarding private agreements
between employees and firms to arbitrate employment disputes.
\25\ The Task Force Report observed that arbitration of
employment related disputes offers advantages in terms of speed and
cost, and that arbitration's essentially equitable approach to
dispute resolution is fully capable of vindicating the important
public rights expressed in anti-discrimination statutes. Task Force
Report at 119. Therefore, the NASD expects that many employees will
continue to file their discrimination claims in arbitration if the
proposed rule becomes effective, and the NASD intends to make
further enhancements to its arbitration forum to make it even more
attractive to parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (b) applies only to claims alleging employment
discrimination or sexual harassment \26\ in violation of a statute.\27\
Paragraph (b) does not apply
[[Page 66167]]
to causes of action created solely by judicial precedents.\28\
Similarly, it does not apply to other causes of action under state or
federal law, which remain subject to mandatory arbitration under
paragraph (a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Sexual harassment has been held to be a form of sex
discrimination, and thus a violation of Title VII. Meritor Savings
Bank versus Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 64 (1986).
\27\ the term ``statute'' is intended to be interpreted in its
broad sense, as defined in Black's Law Dictionary 1410 (6th Ed.
1990): ``A formal written enactment of a legislative body, whether
federal, state, city, or county.''
\28\ Such judicially created causes of action might include, for
example, claims alleging ``wrongful discharge'' without any
accompanying claim of discrimination on account of age, sex, race,
or other status protected by a specific law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (c) of the proposed rule is former paragraph (b), which
is unchanged except for the renumbering.
Effective Date and Related Issues
The NASD has requested that the proposed rule become effective one
year from the date of Commission approval for several reasons. The NASD
believes that a one year period from the date of Commission approval
would permit employees and firms to determine what agreements they
might wish to reach with regard to dispute resolution. During this
period, the NASD will make related enhancements to the forum so that
employees will have confidence that there are adequate procedures and
safeguards of their rights in NASD arbitration. The NASD has formed an
advisory working group to explore various options for the employment
arbitration area, including additional due process standards, standard
discovery lists, arbitrator list selection, and other related issues.
It is expected that the working group will be able to provide advice to
NASD management and the Boards during 1998. Such enhancements to the
NASD's arbitration forum are expected to be the subject of future rule
proposals.
In this connection, the NASD also plans to provide improved
disclosure to employees of the effect of signing the Form U-4, their
rights under the proposed rule, and the features of arbitration, so
that they can make informed decisions.
Finally, the NASD intends to work with other regulators to consider
expanded disclosure on the Form U-4 itself. Amendment to the Form U-4,
an industry-wide form, requires the agreement of the SROs, the state
regulatory authorities, and NASAA, as well as approval by the
Commission. This process could take several months or longer.
2. Statutory Basis
NASD Regulation believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act \29\ in
that the amendment will protect the public interest by allowing
associated persons to choose whether to pursue their statutory claims
of employment discrimination in court or in arbitration, and by
improving parties' confidence in the arbitration process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
The NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any inappropriate burden on competition.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
No written comments were either solicited or received.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
Within 35 days of the 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 the 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. Persons making written submissions
should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549.
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 at 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-97-77 and should
be submitted by January 7, 1998.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32825 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M