[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11435-11439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-5602]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-47435; File No. SR-NASD-2002-168]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule 
Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto by the National Association of 
Securities Dealers, Inc. Relating to Proposed Rule 2130 Concerning the 
Expungement of Customer Dispute Information From the Central 
Registration Depository System

March 4, 2003.
    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 November 19, 2002, the National Association of Securities Dealers, 
Inc. (``NASD'') 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. 
NASD amended the proposed rule change on January 28, 2003.\3\ The 
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit

[[Page 11436]]

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, dated January 28, 2003, from Patrice M. 
Gliniecki, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, NASD, to 
Katherine A. England, Assistant Director, Division of Market 
Regulation, Commission (``Amendment No. 1''). In Amendment No. 1, 
NASD modified the proposed rule text to clarify that the 
requirements of paragraph (b) are to apply only in such cases when 
the NASD has not otherwise waived such requirements. In addition, 
Amendment No. 1 added language to the Purpose section to clarify 
that, pursuant to the rule, the NASD will participate in such 
judicial proceedings and generally oppose expunging dispute 
information and also to clarify that the NASD retains the discretion 
not to oppose expungement. Amendment No. 1 also clarifies that 
application of the proposed rule will apply to customer dispute 
information only and not apply to other expungement directives 
(e.g., related to certain criminal information and certain 
defamatory information). Finally, Amendment No. 1 explains that NASD 
Dispute Resolution will draft training materials for arbitrators 
regarding the standards upon which an arbitration award, directing 
expungement, may be confirmed by a court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance 
of the Proposed Rule Change

    NASD is proposing to adopt NASD Rule 2130 governing the expungement 
of customer dispute information from the Central Registration 
Depository (``CRD[reg]'' or ``CRD system'') and various internal 
guidelines to be adopted by NASD regarding the handling of requests to 
expunge customer dispute information from the CRD System. Below is the 
text of the proposed rule change. Proposed rule language is in italics.
* * * * *

2130. Obtaining an Order of Expungement of Customer Dispute Information 
from the Central Registration Depository (CRD System)

    (a) Members or associated persons seeking to expunge information 
from the CRD system arising from disputes with public customers must 
obtain an order from a court of competent jurisdiction directing such 
expungement or confirming an arbitration award containing expungement 
relief.
    (b) Members or associated persons petitioning a court for 
expungement relief or seeking judicial confirmation of an arbitration 
award containing expungement relief must name NASD as an additional 
party and serve NASD with all appropriate documents unless this 
requirement is waived pursuant to subparagraphs (1) or (2) below.
    (1) Upon request, NASD may waive the obligation to name NASD as a 
party if NASD determines that the expungement relief is based on 
judicial or arbitral findings that:
    (A) the claim, allegation or information is without factual basis;
    (B) the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 
granted or is frivolous; or
    (C) the information contained in the CRD system is defamatory in 
nature.
    (2) If the expungement relief is based on judicial or arbitral 
findings other than those described above, NASD, in its sole discretion 
and under extraordinary circumstances, also may waive the obligation to 
name NASD as a party if it determines that:
    (A) the expungement relief and accompanying findings on which it is 
based are meritorious; and
    (B) the expungement would have no material adverse effect on 
investor protection, the integrity of the CRD system, or regulatory 
requirements.
* * * * *

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and 
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, NASD 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. NASD 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish procedures 
for expunging customer dispute information from the CRD system. The 
proposed rule will require all directives to expunge customer dispute 
information from the CRD system to be confirmed by or ordered by a 
court of competent jurisdiction. The proposed rule includes any such 
directives that may be in: (1) Judicial proceedings seeking expungement 
(including proceedings seeking expungement relief resulting from 
settlements in disputes between public customers and member firms or 
their associated persons in which the parties agree to expungement of 
customer dispute information as part of the settlement); (2) 
arbitration awards rendered in disputes between public customers and 
member firms or their associated persons in which the parties agree to 
expunge customer dispute information as part of the settlement and then 
present the settlement to the arbitration panel for inclusion in a 
stipulated award; and (3) arbitration awards issued after a decision on 
the merits.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NASD Dispute Resolution will draft training materials for 
arbitrators and informational materials for parties regarding the 
standards under which customer dispute information may be expunged. 
No amendment to the Code of Arbitration Procedure is currently 
anticipated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule also will require member firms and associated 
persons seeking expungement to name NASD as an additional party in any 
judicial proceeding seeking expungement relief or confirming an 
arbitration award containing expungement relief. Under the proposed 
rule, NASD will participate in such judicial proceedings and generally 
will oppose expunging dispute information in such judicial proceedings 
unless the arbitrators or the court have made specific findings that 
the subject matter of the claim or the information in the CRD system: 
(1) Is without factual basis (i.e., is factually impossible or clearly 
erroneous); (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 
or is frivolous; or (3) is defamatory in nature. NASD will retain 
discretion under the proposed rule not to oppose expungement relief in 
exceptional cases where the basis for the expungement does not fall 
within one of the three standards. NASD would exercise such discretion 
only if it determines that the expungement is meritorious and would 
have no material adverse effect on investor protection, the integrity 
of the CRD system or regulatory requirements.
    The proposed rule will also permit member firms and associated 
persons to ask NASD to waive the requirement to name NASD as a party on 
the basis that the expungement order meets at least one of the 
standards for expungement articulated in the proposed rule. This will 
save members and NASD time and expense by enabling NASD to review the 
findings of the arbitrators or court and determine to waive 
participation in the judicial proceeding if NASD determines that the 
findings made by the arbitrators or the court meet at least one of the 
standards in the rule. If the expungement order fails to meet at least 
one of the standards in the rule, NASD will participate in the judicial 
proceeding and oppose the expungement.
    Consistent with existing CRD policy, certain expungement directives 
will not be subject to the proposed rule. For example, NASD will 
continue to expunge certain information that is not customer dispute 
information, such as certain criminal information, pursuant to federal 
and state law. Also, NASD may execute, without a court order, an 
arbitration award rendered in a dispute between a member and a current 
or former associated person that contains an expungement directive in 
which the arbitration panel states that expungement relief is being 
granted based on the defamatory nature of the information.
    The CRD system is an on-line registration and licensing system for 
the U.S. securities industry, state and Federal regulators, and self-
regulatory organizations (``SROs''). The CRD system contains broker-
dealer information filed on the Uniform Application for Broker-Dealer 
Registration (``Form BD'') and the Uniform Request for Withdrawal from 
Broker-Dealer Registration (``Form BDW'') and information on associated 
persons filed on the Uniform

[[Page 11437]]

Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (``Form U-
4'') and the Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry 
Registration (``Form U-5''). The CRD system also contains information 
filed by regulators via the Uniform Disciplinary Action Reporting form 
(``Form U-6''). The CRD system contains administrative information 
(personal, organizational, employment history, registration and other 
information) and disclosure information (criminal matters, regulatory 
disciplinary actions, civil judicial actions, financial information, 
and information relating to customer disputes) filed on these forms. 
For purposes of this rule, ``customer dispute information'' includes 
customer complaints, arbitration claims, and court filings made by 
customers, and the arbitration awards or court judgments that may 
result from those claims or filings. This category of information 
contains allegations that a member or one or more of its associated 
persons has violated securities laws, regulations, or rules.
    NASD operates the CRD system pursuant to policies developed jointly 
with the North American Securities Administrators Association 
(``NASAA''). NASD works with the SEC, NASAA, other members of the 
regulatory community, and member firms to establish policies and 
procedures reasonably designed to ensure that information submitted to 
and maintained on the CRD system is accurate and complete. These 
procedures, among other things, cover expungement of information from 
the CRD system in narrowly defined circumstances. NASAA and some states 
have taken the position that information in the CRD system is a record 
of any state that uses the information to make a licensing decision, 
and that state laws generally do not permit information to be expunged 
once it has been filed on the CRD system, absent a court order that 
explicitly directs expungement.
    Since the inception of the CRD system in 1981, NASD generally has 
honored court-ordered expungements and, until January 1999, NASD also 
honored arbitrator-ordered expungements that were contained in final 
awards. In January 1999, after consultation with NASAA, NASD imposed a 
moratorium on arbitrator-ordered expungements from the CRD system.\5\ 
Under the moratorium, which is still in effect, NASD will not expunge 
information from the CRD system based on a directive contained in an 
arbitration award rendered in a dispute between a public customer and a 
firm or its associated persons unless that award has been confirmed by 
a court of competent jurisdiction.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The moratorium was announced in Notice to Members 99-09.
    \6\ Under existing CRD policy, and consistent with the 1999 
moratorium, NASD may execute, without a court order, arbitration 
awards rendered in disputes between registered representatives and 
firms that contain expungement directives in which the arbitration 
panel states that expungement relief is being granted because of the 
defamatory nature of the information. These expungements are not 
covered by the moratorium and will not be covered by the proposed 
rules and policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since imposing the moratorium, NASD has been considering how to 
craft an approach to expungement that would allow NASD, in its capacity 
as an SRO and as operator of the CRD system, effectively to challenge 
expungement directives that might diminish or impair the integrity of 
the system and to ensure the maintenance of essential information for 
regulators and investors.\7\ Such an approach necessarily requires NASD 
to balance three competing interests: (1) The interests of NASD, the 
states, and other regulators in retaining broad access to customer 
dispute information to fulfill their regulatory responsibilities and 
investor protection obligations; (2) the interests of the brokerage 
community and others in a fair process that recognizes their stake in 
protecting their reputations and permits expungement from the CRD 
system when appropriate; and (3) the interests of investors in having 
access to accurate and meaningful information about brokers with whom 
they conduct, or may conduct, business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In July 1999, NASD issued Notice to Members 99-54 seeking 
comment on possible approaches to addressing arbitrator-ordered 
expungements of information from the CRD system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD is cognizant of the importance of ensuring that the 
expungement policy does not have an overly broad chilling effect on the 
settlement process or inappropriately interfere with the arbitration 
process or arbitrators' authority to award appropriate remedies. NASD 
and other regulators participating in the CRD system agree that 
expungement is extraordinary relief, and that courts granting 
expungement relief under the existing rules and procedures may not 
fully consider all of the competing interests referenced above. NASD 
believes that the additional safeguards and procedures proposed herein 
will allow fact finders and NASD to consider all competing interests 
before directing or granting expungement of customer dispute 
information from the CRD system.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASD believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is 
consistent with the provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\8\ in 
that the proposal is 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 
believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is designed to 
accomplish these ends by allowing fact finders and NASD to consider all 
competing interests before directing or granting expungement of 
customer dispute information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended, 
would 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

    In October 2001, NASD published Notice to Members 01-65 (``NtM 01-
65'' or ``Notice'') requesting comment on the establishment of certain 
criteria that must be met, and procedures that must be followed, before 
NASD would expunge certain information from the CRD system pursuant to 
an expungement order. NtM 01-65 encouraged members, investors, 
registered representatives, and other interested persons to comment. 
NASD proposed in NtM 01-65 that the CRD system expunge customer dispute 
information only if certain criteria are met and certain protocols 
followed. Specifically, NASD requested comment on whether expungement 
of customer dispute information from the CRD system should generally be 
limited to cases where the expungement order is based on a finding by 
an arbitrator or a court that (1) The subject matter of a claim or 
information in the system involves a case of factual impossibility or 
``clear error''; (2) the claim is without legal merit; or (3) the 
information contained in the CRD system is determined to be defamatory 
in nature.
    NASD also sought comment on (1) Specific procedures that would be 
required to be followed depending on whether the finding that is made 
results from a contested proceeding or from a settled matter; (2) the 
adoption of a rule amending the Code of Arbitration

[[Page 11438]]

Procedure to require a finding in an arbitration award of one or more 
of the expungement criteria discussed in the Notice; and (3) the 
adoption of a rule or Interpretive Material that clearly articulates 
NASD's authority to pursue disciplinary action against a member or 
associated person who seeks to have information about an arbitration 
claim expunged after there has been an award rendered against that 
member or associated person by the arbitrators or seeks to expunge any 
arbitration award that does not contain an expungement order and a 
finding of at least one of the criteria set forth in the Notice. NtM 
01-65 provided members and other interested parties with a checklist of 
four questions that they could use to respond to the request for 
comment in addition to, or in lieu of, sending written comments. NASD 
noted that the checklist did not cover all aspects of the proposal, and 
it encouraged commenters to provide written comments, as necessary. 
NASD extended the comment period from November 24, 2001 to December 31, 
2001. NASD received a total of 579 responses to the Notice.
    Forty of the 579 responses to NtM 01-65 consisted solely of written 
comments. A significant percentage of the remaining 539 commenters 
identified themselves as registered representatives associated with 
NASD member firms, and these commenters overwhelmingly opposed the 
imposition of any additional substantive or procedural obligations 
before expungement of customer dispute information could be effected. 
Commenters responded to the four questions as follows: \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Some commenters submitted duplicate responses to the 
questions; NASD considered these as one vote per question. For those 
commenters who changed their answers to the questions in a second 
response, NASD considered only the second response. NASD staff also 
notes that not all commenters responded to each question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question 1 asked: ``Should [NASD] adopt a rule that would require 
members to provide notice to [NASD] and make [NASD] a party to the 
proceeding before seeking a court order directing expungement or 
confirming an arbitration award that contains an expungement 
directive?'' Forty commenters answered ``yes,'' 495 commenters answered 
``no,'' and four commenters did not answer this question.
    Question 2 asked: ``Should [NASD] establish specific standards that 
must be met before it will execute orders directing it to expunge 
customer dispute information from the CRD system? Are the standards 
identified in the Notice (i.e., factually impossible/clear error; 
without legal merit; and defamatory in nature) appropriate?'' Fifty-one 
commenters answered ``yes,'' 483 commenters answered ``no,'' and five 
commenters did not answer this question.
    Question 3 asked: ``Should [NASD] execute arbitrators'' directives 
to expunge customer dispute information from the CRD system if (1) 
arbitrators make specific findings in stipulated or consent awards; (2) 
arbitrators expressly include those findings in an award; and (3) a 
party confirms the award in a court of competent jurisdiction?'' 
Eighty-eight commenters answered ``yes,'' 441 commenters answered 
``no,'' and 10 commenters did not answer this question.
    Question 4 asked: ``Should [NASD] adopt a rule or Interpretive 
Material that would explicitly articulate [NASD's] authority to pursue 
disciplinary actions for violations of just and equitable principles of 
trade against a member or associated person who seeks to have 
information about an arbitration claim expunged after there has been an 
award rendered against that member by the arbitrators or seeks to 
expunge any arbitration award that does not contain an expungement 
order and a finding of at least one of the criteria described in the 
Notice?'' Forty-eight commenters answered ``yes,'' 483 commenters 
answered ``no,'' and eight commenters did not answer this question.
    Of the 40 commenters who responded by letter, 25 were NASD members 
or persons associated with NASD members.\10\ NASAA, the Securities 
Industry Association (``SIA''), the Public Investors Arbitration Bar 
Association (``PIABA''), the National Association of Investment 
Professionals (``NAIP'') also commented, as did a number of non-
industry persons who have an interest in the arbitration process. There 
was a wide variance in these comments, ranging from approval of some or 
all of the proposed procedures to total disapproval. Among the concerns 
raised by commenters were: the proposed procedures requiring court 
confirmation would be burdensome and costly; mandatory court 
confirmation and naming NASD as a party would undermine the arbitration 
process; the proposed procedures would create a conflict of interest 
between firms and representatives in settlements because the firm might 
wish to settle a case, regardless of its merits, thereby precluding the 
representative from obtaining an expungement; and the proposed criteria 
for expungement were too vague and/or too restrictive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A number of commenters did not identify any affiliation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some of these commenters recommended new requirements in the 
arbitration process to handle expungement requests. For example, it was 
suggested that arbitrators be required to decide claims of defamation 
based on the law of the state in which the party claiming defamation 
maintains his/her/its principal office, or in accordance with the terms 
of an agreement between the parties. Another suggestion was to require 
claimants to attest that they are bringing the claim in good faith and 
to give arbitrators the authority to award sanctions against claimants 
who bring claims in bad faith or without a reasonable basis. Some 
commenters suggested that a party submitting a stipulated award 
containing a recommendation for expungement to a court for confirmation 
should attach an affidavit setting forth facts constituting ``factual 
impossibility'' and/or ``clear error.''
    Based on the comments to NtM 01-65, NASD is proposing to retain the 
core substantive requirements of the expungement program described in 
NtM 01-65, but is also proposing certain modifications to the program 
proposed in the Notice. NASD recognizes that any expungement program 
requires a balancing of competing interests. NASD believes that the 
proposed rule will: help to ensure that information submitted to and 
maintained on the CRD system is accurate and complete; give regulators 
the broad access to customer dispute information that they need to 
fulfill their regulatory responsibilities; give individuals in the 
brokerage community a fair process that protects their reputations and 
permits expungement from the CRD system when appropriate; and gives 
investors access to accurate information about brokers with whom they 
conduct, or may conduct, business.
    NASD has incorporated the following modifications based on its 
review of the comments. NASD proposes to modify the three broad 
categories proposed in NtM 01-65: ``without factual basis,'' ``without 
legal merit,'' and ``defamatory in nature.'' The ``without factual 
basis'' standard would include, as identified in the Notice, the 
``factually impossible'' and ``clear error'' standards. Of the three 
categories proposed, the ``without legal merit'' standard drew the most 
comments, ranging from claims that it is too narrow, too broad, or too 
vague. To address those comments, NASD proposes to change the ``without 
legal merit'' standard to a standard of ``failure to state a claim upon 
which relief can be granted'' or ``frivolous.'' NASD

[[Page 11439]]

proposes to retain the ``defamatory in nature'' standard proposed in 
NtM 01-65. Although this standard was the subject of many comments, it 
has been used successfully in the arbitration forum in registered 
representative/member firm arbitrations, and NASD believes that it is 
appropriate as proposed.
    NASD proposed in NtM 01-65 to limit expungement relief in 
stipulated awards to cases involving ``factual impossibility'' or 
``clear error'' on the basis that persons in those circumstances should 
be able to avail themselves of the settlement opportunity outside of 
arbitration, and then request that an arbitrator issue an award that 
incorporates the stipulated settlement and includes expungement relief 
for certain named parties. In excluding the other two grounds for 
expungement from its initial proposal, NASD noted that it believed that 
it was unlikely that claimant or claimant's counsel would agree that 
the claim or information at issue was lacking in legal merit or was 
defamatory in nature. In response to comments, NASD proposes to modify 
the original proposal to allow expungement relief in stipulated awards 
(or on the basis of a settlement) based on all three grounds, with a 
uniform requirement that there be specific judicial or arbitral 
findings in all such cases. In connection with making the required 
arbitral findings in such cases, NASD will explore the use of 
telephonic versus in-person hearings, as well as the option of making a 
decision based on briefs and affidavits from the parties and relevant 
third parties.
    In response to commenters' concerns about the burdens and costs in 
naming NASD as an additional party in any judicial proceeding seeking 
expungement relief or confirming an arbitration award containing 
expungement relief and serving NASD with the appropriate court papers, 
NASD proposes to retain these requirements, but it further proposes to 
permit parties to ask NASD to waive the requirement that it be made a 
party upon a showing that the expungement relief being requested is 
within the established standards. This will save members and NASD time 
and expense by enabling NASD to review the findings of the arbitrators 
or court and determine to waive participation in the judicial 
proceeding if the findings meet at least one of the standards in the 
rule. If the expungement order fails to meet at least one of the 
standards in the rule, NASD will participate in the judicial proceeding 
and oppose the expungement. NASD also proposes to retain discretion not 
to oppose expungement relief in exceptional cases where the basis for 
the expungement does not fall within one of the three standards. NASD 
would exercise such discretion only if it determines that the 
expungement is meritorious and would have no material adverse effect on 
investor protection, the integrity of the CRD system, or regulatory 
requirements.
    After reviewing the comments, NASD also determined not to adopt a 
rule or Interpretive Material that would explicitly articulate NASD's 
authority to pursue disciplinary actions for violations of just and 
equitable principles of trade against a member or associated person who 
seeks to have information about an arbitration claim expunged after 
there has been an award rendered against that member by the arbitrators 
or seeks to expunge any arbitration award that does not contain an 
expungement order and a finding of at least one of the criteria 
described in the Notice. NASD believes that it currently has authority 
under Rule 2110 to bring a disciplinary action against NASD members and 
their associated persons who contravene the standards set forth in 
NASD's proposed rule and policies. NASD will revisit this issue in the 
future should it appear that such a rule is necessary.

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, as amended, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule 
change, as amended, 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 
change, as amended, 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, as 
amended, that are filed with the Commission, and all written 
communications relating to the proposed rule change, as amended, 
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-2002-168 and should be 
submitted by March 31, 2003.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.3-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-5602 Filed 3-7-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P