3510 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices

5Securities Exchange Act Release No. 25740 (May

24, 1988), 53 FR 19639.

6Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 29067

(April 11, 1991), 56 FR 15652; 32385 (June 3, 1993),

58 FR 32405; 35787 (May 31, 1995), 60 FR 30324;

36508 (November 27, 1995), 60 FR 61719; 37983

(November 25, 1996), 61 FR 64183; 38698 (May 30,

1997), 62 FR 30911; 39696 (February 24, 1998), 63

FR 10253; 41104 (February 24, 1999), 64 FR 10510;

and 41805 (August 27, 1999), 64 FR 48682.

7 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(16).

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3See Letter from John Ramsay, Vice President,

Deputy General Counsel, NASD Regulation, to

Katherine A. England, Assistant Director, Division

of Market Regulation (‘‘Division’’), Commission,

dated May 13, 1998 (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’).

4See Exchange Act Release No. 40074 (June 4,

1998), 63 FR 32690 (June 15, 1998).

5See Letter from Donald Phillips, President,

Morningstar, Inc., to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary,

Commission, dated July 6, 1998 (‘‘Morningstar

Letter’’); Letter from Lawrence H. Kaplan,

Chairman, Investment Company Committee,

Securities Industry Association, to Margaret H.

McFarland, Deputy Secretary, Commission, dated

July 1, 1998 (‘‘SIA Letter’’); Letter from Henry H.

Hopkins, Managing Director and Chief Legal

Counsel, T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., to Jonathan

G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated July 6, 1998

(‘‘T. Rowe Price Letter’’); Letter from Joseph P.

Savage, Assistant Counsel, Investment Company

Institute, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary,

Commission, dated July 6, 1998 (‘‘ICI Letter’’).

6See Letter to Katherine A. England, Assistant

Director, Division, Commission, from Thomas M.

Selman, Vice President, Investment Companies/

Corporate Financing, NASD Regulation, dated April

19, 1999 (‘‘Amendment No. 2’’).

7See Letter to Katherine A. England, Assistant

Director, Division, Commission, from Thomas M.

Selman, Vice President, Investment Companies/

Corporate Financing, NASD Regulation, dated

November 9, 1999 (‘‘Amendment No. 3’’).

three years.5 The Commission

subsequently has extended GSCC’s

registration through January 14, 2000.6

In the most recent extension of

GSCC’s temporary registration, the

Commission stated that it planned in

the near future to seek comment on

granting GSCC permanent registration as

a clearing agency. This extension of

GSCC’s temporary registration will

enable the Commission to do so within

the next few months.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments with respect to whether the

Commission should grant GSCC

permanent registration as a clearing

agency. 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–

0609. Copies of the amended

application for registration and all

written comments will be available for

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Reference Room, 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20549. All

submissions should refer to File No.

600–23 and should be submitted by

February 11, 2000.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED

pursuant to Sections 17A(b) and 19(a) of

the Act that GSCC’s temporary

registration as a clearing agency (File

No. 600–23) be and hereby is extended

through July 31, 2000.

For the Commission, by the Division

of Market Regulation, pursuant to

delegated authority.7

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–1478 Filed 1–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–42340; File No. SR–NASD–

98–32]

Self-Regulatory Organizations;

National Association of Securities

Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving

Proposed Rule Change and Notice of

Filing and Order Granting Accelerated

Approval to Amendment Nos. 2 and 3

Thereto Relating to Filing

Requirements for Independently

Prepared Research Reports

January 13, 2000.

1. Introduction

On April 9, 1998, the National

Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.

(‘‘NASD’’ or ‘‘Association’’), through its

wholly owned subsidiary, NASD

Regulation, Inc. (‘‘NASD Regulation’’),

submitted to the Securities and

Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or

‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section

19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act

of 1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’ or ‘‘Act’’) 1 and

Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule

change to amend the Conduct Rules of

the NASD to exclude independently

prepared research reports from the filing

requirements of NASD Rule 2210.

NASD Regulation filed an amendment

to the proposed rule change on May 14,

1998, which was published in the

original notice in the Federal Register.3

The proposed rule change was

published for comment in the Federal

Register on June 15, 1998.4 The

Commission received four comments on

the proposal.5 NASD Regulation filed

amendments to the proposed rule

change on April 19, 1999,6 and

November 10, 1999.7 This order

approves the proposed rule change, as

amended.

II. Description

NASD Conduct Rule 2210 currently

requires that any ‘‘advertisement’’ or

‘‘sales literature’’ concerning a

registered investment company be filed

with NASD Regulation’s Advertising/

Investment Companies Regulation

Department (‘‘Department’’) and meet

the content standards of that rule, as

well as all applicable Commission rules.

The rule defines ‘‘sales literature’’ to

include a research report. Consequently,

Rule 2210 requires that NASD member

file all investment company research

reports, even when the report is

prepared by ‘‘independent research

firms’’ (i.e., those firms that are

independent of the investment

company, its affiliates, or any NASD

member, and whose services are not

procured by the investment company,

any of its affiliates, or any NASD

member).

NASD Regulation notes that as the

investment company industry has

grown in recent years so too has the

coverage of this industry by

independent research firms. Many of

these firms publish reports that analyze

a wide variety of investment companies

and provide information about the

investment companies, including each

investment company’s historical

performance, the investment company’s

fees and expenses, and a description

and narrative analysis of the investment

company’s investment strategies and

portfolio management style.

NASD states that members use these

independently prepared research

reports in a number of ways. Some

members may make the entire research

service available to customers at a

branch office. Members may also

distribute an independently prepared

research report concerning a particular

investment company as part of the

selling process.

NASD Regulation proposed the rule

change to clarify the meaning,

administration and enforcement of rule

2210 insofar as it applies to certain

types of independently prepared

research reports. The proposed rule

change would clarify that certain types

of independently prepared research

reports would not have to be filed with

the Department. The Department

intends to interpret the term

‘‘independent’’ in (G)(i) of the proposed

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices 3511

8See supra note 5.

9See Morningstar Letter; and ICI Letter.

10See Amendment No. 2.

11See Morningstar Letter.

12See Morningstar Letter; and ICI Letter.

rule change in a manner similar to the

use of that term in NASD Rule IM–

2210–3, regarding rankings.

Under the proposed rule change,

these research reports would continue

to be subject to the Department’s spot

check procedures. Moreover, the

proposed rule change would impose

certain conditions designed to ensure

that the opinions in the research reports

are objective, that the presentation is

balanced, and that investors have access

to regular updates of the reports. In

particular, the proposed rule change

would impose several requirements

derived from an analogous SEC Rule—

Rule 139—which provides a safe harbor

from the definition of ‘‘offer for sale’’

and ‘‘offer to sell’’ in the Securities Act

of 1933 (‘‘Securities Act’’).

Thus, under the proposed rule

change, a published article that analyzes

only a few funds or that is not regularly

updated in the normal course of

business would have to be filed with the

Department if it is to be distributed or

made generally available to customers

or the public. Moreover, while a

member could distribute an

independently prepared research report

concerning a particular fund without

filing the report with the Department, if

the member alters the report in any

material way, then the member would

have to file it with the Department if it

is to be distributed or made generally

available to customers or the public.

NASD Regulation believes that the

proposed rule change does not raise

significant investor protection concerns.

In its filing and review program, NASD

Regulation represents that the

Department rarely has found significant

issues with the types of research reports

that would be excepted by the proposed

rule change. Furthermore, the exception

in the proposed rule change only

exempts these types of research reports

from the filing requirements; the

research reports must still comply with

applicable NASD rules. In particular,

under the proposed rule change, these

research reports would continue to be

subject to the content requirements of

Rule 2210 as well as Conduct Rule 2110

(requiring that a member ‘‘observe high

standards of commercial honor and just

and equitable principles of trade’’), and

Rule 2120 (prohibiting use of

manipulative, deceptive or other

fraudulent devices). In addition,

Conduct Rule 2210 requires that the

research reports be approved prior to

use by a registered principal of the

member.

The proposed rule change would

apply to independently prepared

research reports that are contained in

software or that are electronically

communicated, as well as those on

paper.

III. Summary of Comments

The Commission received four

comment letters on the proposed rule

change, all of which were generally

supportive, but requested clarification.8

Morningstar and the ICI requested

clarification of a provision in the rule

that would prohibit an investment

company, its affiliated and any NASD

member that would reply on the filing

exemption from procuring the services

of a research firm. Specifically, they

sought clarification that the rule would

not be interpreted to prohibit members

relying on the filing exemption from: (i)

Using research firms that charge funds

or members subscription fees or fees for

producing, distributing and

redistributing their reports; or (ii)

paying fees to research firms that are

retained on a ‘‘by request’’ basis to

create customized reports or perform

other separate research services based

on a repackaging of information already

published by the research firm. 9

NASD Regulation responded by

amending the rule proposal to clarify

that the exemption is not available with

respect to the commissioning of

research. Rather, the exemption will be

available with respect to the

procurement of a research firm’s

services. Furthermore, NASD Regulation

will now permit research firms and

members to develop customized reports,

provided that the reports include only

information that the research firm

already has compiled and published in

another non-customized report and the

reports do not omit information

necessary to make them fair and

balanced. 10

Morningstar also requested

clarification that the requirement in the

exemption that a research firm prepare

and distribute similar types of reports

with respect to a substantial number of

investment companies would not be

interpreted to require that each report be

in an identical format or contain

identical information. In response,

NASD Regulation amended the filing to

provide that, in order to qualify for the

filing exemption, the research firm must

prepare and distribute reports ‘‘based on

similar research.’’ The provision

requiring that the research firm prepare

and distribute ‘‘similar types of reports’’

is being eliminated.

Morningstar sought clarification that

the exemption requirement that research

reports be distributed and updated with

reasonable regularity in the normal

course of the research firm’s business

would not prohibit the distribution of

customized reports prepared upon

request. It noted that such reports are

entirely comprised of information that is

otherwise issued under a distribution

cycle and, when aggregated with reports

issued under a distribution cycle,

should be considered to have been

distributed with reasonable regularity in

the ordinary course of the firm’s

research business. 11

NASD Regulation responded that the

proposed rule change would still

exempt from the filing requirements

customized reports prepared on request

that are entirely comprised of

information completed and published in

another report, provided that the

customized report does not omit

information necessary to make it fair

and balanced.

Morningstar and the ICI also

requested clarification that the filing

exemption would be available with

respect to research reports containing

performance information that does not

meet the currentness standards of Rule

482 under the Securities Act, as long as

the reports are accompanied by

information that complies with those

currentness standards. 12

NASD Regulation noted that its

Department has a long-standing

informal interpretation that members

may distribute a research report that

does not meet the currentness standards

of Securities Act Rule 482, as long as the

research report represents the most

recent version issued by the research

firm and is accompanied by information

that meets those standards. NASD

Regulation further noted that the

proposed rule change would not affect

this interpretation.

T. Rowe Price, the SIA and the ICI

sought clarification that the proposed

rule change would not be interpreted to

prohibit a member from supplementing

an independent research report with

additional information, such as a

clarification of terms and/or ranking

systems, or additional disclosure

required by NASD or Commission rules.

Morningstar also requested clarification

that a research report that did not meet

the NASD and Commission content

requirements, but was accompanied by

additional information necessary for the

report to meet the applicable content

requirements, would still be eligible for

the exemption.

NASD Regulation confirmed that the

exemption would explicitly permit

material alterations necessary to make

3512 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices

13See Morningstar Letter; and SIA Letter.

14See Amendment No. 3.

15See ICI Letter.

16See T. Rowe Price Letter.

17See ICI Letter.

18 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b).

19See 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6). In approving this

rule change, the Commission has considered the

proposal’s impact on efficiency, competition, and

capital formation, consistent with Section 3 of the

Act. Id. at 78c(f).

20NASD Conduct Rule 2110 requires that a

member ‘‘observe high standards of commercial

honor and just and equitable principles of trade.’’

Rule 2120 prohibits the use of manipulative,

deceptive or other fraudulent violations. IM–2310–

2 requires fair dealing with customers, including

avoiding fraud violation.

21NASD Regulation also asserts that the rule

change will not have any effect on its longstanding

informal interpretation that allows members to

distribute a research report that does not meet the

currentness standards of Commission Rule 482, as

long as the report represents the most recent version

issued and is accompanied by information that

satisfies the currentness standards. See Amendment

No. 2. Although this ‘‘informal interpretation’’ is

not part of the proposed rule change and, as such,

is not being formally approved by this order, the

Commission’s Division of Investment Management

indicates that the informal interpretation conforms

with the intent of Rule 482, provided that the

information is not presented in a materially

misleading manner.

the report consistent with NASD,

Commission or other applicable

standards. Furthermore, the proposal

would not require the filing of material

that would accompany the report and

that would merely clarify terms or other

information in the report itself.

Morningstar and the SIA noted that,

although the proposed rule change

would eliminate the requirement to file

certain research reports with NASD

Regulation, Section 24(b) of the

Investment Company Act of 1940 Act

(‘‘1940 Act’’) and Rule 24b–3 under that

Act would still require that the reports

be filed with the Commission if they are

not filed with NASD

Regulation.13Commenters added that

such a result would be inconsistent with

the purpose of the proposed rule

change, especially if funds and fund

underwriters choose to file with NASD

Regulation to satisfy the requirements of

Section 24(b). NASD Regulation has

amended the proposed rule change to

clarify that although the qualifying

research reports are exempted from the

filing requirement, they will be deemed

filed with NASD Regulation in order to

satisfy Section 24(b) of the 1940 Act and

Rule 24b–3 thereunder.14

The ICI proposed that NASD

Regulation include a definition of

‘‘research report’’ to clarify that it is a

report that provides an in-depth

analysis of a particular fund, but is not

intended to cover reprints of articles

that appear in widely circulated

financial magazines.15T. Rowe Price

supported the ICI’s proposed definition

but suggested that it also include article

reprints sent to institutional customers

in order to exclude such reprints from

the filing requirements. T. Rowe Price

also suggested including a definition of

‘‘institutional customer’’ in the

proposed rule change.16

NASD Regulation responded by

noting that the proposed rule change

would not apply to article reprints,

which NASD Rule 2210 includes in the

definition of ‘‘sales literature.’’ NASD

Regulation believed that the proposed

rule change provided sufficient

guidance to members concerning the

meaning of ‘‘research report.’’ NASD

Regulation added that it also reviewing

the treatment of institutional sales

material, but did not modify the

proposal as a result of the comments.

The ICI requested confirmation that

the proposal would exempt

independent research reports that

included performance ranking

information, provided that the reports

meet the proposed exemption criteria.17

NASD Regulation confirmed that the

proposal would exempt such reports,

provided that they meet the exemption

criteria. NASD Regulation also noted

that such reports would be required to

comply with the content requirements

of IM–2210–3, regarding rankings, as

well as any other applicable

Commission and NASD requirements.

Discussion

The Commission finds that the

proposed rule change is consistent with

the requirements of the Act and the

rules and regulations thereunder

applicable to the Association and, in

particular, with the requirements of

Section 15A(b) of the Act.18

Specifically, the Commission finds that

the proposed rule change is consistent

with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act in that

it promotes just and equitable principles

of trade, and generally provides for the

protection of investors and the public

interest.19

The Commission believes that the

proposed rule change should reduce

regulatory burdens for NASD members

while maintaining investor protection

safeguards regarding the dissemination

of useful fund information. Specifically,

although the proposed rule reduces the

filing obligations for qualifying

independent research reports, investor

protection objectives should be served

because the exempted independent

research reports must still comply with

the content requirements of NASD

Conduct Rules 2210, 2110, 2120, and

IM–2310–2.20 In addition, Conduct Rule

2210 would continue to require that

these research reports be approved by a

registered principal of the member prior

to use. The exempted independent

research reports would also remain

subject to NASD Regulation’s spotcheck procedures.

The Commission notes that two of the

commenters asserted that, although the

proposed rule change would eliminate

the NASD filing requirement for

qualifying independent research reports,

Section 24(b) of the 1940 Act and Rule

24b–3 thereunder would still require

that such reports be filed with the

Commission. In response, NASD

Regulation amended the proposed rule

change to clarify that research reports

satisfying the filing exemption will be

deemed filed with the NASD for the

purposes of Section 24(b) of the 1940

Act and Rule 24b–3 thereunder.

The Commission finds good cause to

approve Amendment No. 2 to the

proposed rule change prior to the 30th

day after the date of publication of

notice of filing thereof in the Federal

Register. Amendment No. 2 addresses

several issues. First, it clarifies that the

exemption is not available with respect

to the commissioning of research, but is

available with respect to the

procurement of an independent research

firm’s services. Second, Amendment

No. 2 confirms that a customized report

prepared on request would still be

exempted from the filing requirements if

it is entirely comprised of information

published in another report, and

provided that the customized report

does not omit information necessary to

make it fair and balanced.21 Third,

Amendment No. 2 clarifies that, to

qualify for the filing exemption, an

independent research firm must prepare

and distribute reports based on similar

research. This affirms that the reports do

not have to be identical in format or

contain identical information to qualify

for the exemption. Fourth, Amendment

No. 2 clarifies that material changes to

exempted independent research reports

will be permitted when the changes are

necessary to make them consistent with

NASD, Commission or other applicable

standards. Finally, Amendment No. 2

does not raise any new or novel

regulatory issues. Accordingly, the

Commission believes that it is

consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) and

19(b)(2) of the Act to approve

Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule

change on an accelerated basis.

The Commission finds good cause to

approve Amendment No. 3 to the

proposed rule change prior to the 30th

day after the date of publication of

notice of filing thereof in the Federal

Register. Amendment No. 3 clarifies

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices 3513

22 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

23 17 U.S.C. 200.30–3(a)(12).

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47707

(December 8, 1999), 64 FR 69811.

4Credit card information will be obtained

through a secure web site connection.

5Examples of fields, depending on the type of

report chosen, could include reported volume,

reported price , reported time, inside bid/ask, short

sale indicator, etc.

that independent research reports that

are eligible for the filing exemption will

be deemed to be filed with the NASD for

the purposes of Section 24(b) of the

1940 Act and Rule 24b–3 thereunder.

The staff of the Commission’s Division

of Investment Management supports

this aspect of the proposal. Amendment

No. 3 also amends paragraph (G)(ii) in

the proposed rule change to clarify that

a member may not alter an exempted

research report except as necessary to

make the report consistent with

applicable regulatory standards. The

Commission believes that this

clarification should help members to

understand that the exemption relates

solely to legal and regulatory standards,

and not industry or other standards.

Accordingly, the Commission believes

that it is consistent with Sections

15A(b)(6) and 19(b)(2) of the Act to

approve Amendment No. 3 to the

proposed rule change on an accelerated

basis.

V. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views and

arguments concerning Amendment Nos.

2 and 3, including whether the

proposed rule change is consistent with

the Act. 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–

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 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–98–32 and should be

submitted by February 11, 2000.

VI. Conclusion

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,22 that the

proposed rule change (SR–NASD–98–

32) is approved, as amended.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.23

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–1459 Filed 1–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

(Release No. 34-42341; File No. SR-NASD99-70)

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order

Granting Approval of Proposed Rule

Change by the National Association of

Securities Dealers, Inc. To Establish a

FEE For Historical Research and

Administrative Reports Provided

Through Nasdaq’s Web Sites

January 14, 2000.

I. Introduction

On November 24, 1999, the National

Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.

(‘‘NASD’’ or ‘‘Association’’), through its

wholly owned subsidiary, the Nasdaq

Stock Market, Inc. (‘‘Nasdaq’’), filed

with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘SEC’’)

pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a

proposed rule change to establish a fee

for historical research and

administrative reports provided through

Nasdaq’s web sites. Notice of the

proposed rule change appeared in the

Federal Register on December 14,

1999.3 The Commission received no

comments on the proposed rule change.

This order approves the proposed rule

change.

II. Description of the Proposal

Nasdaq proposes to establish a fee

which it will charge to investors who

request historical research reports

pertaining to Nasdaq, Over-the-Counter

Bulletin Board (‘‘OTCBB’’) or other

Over-the-Counter (‘‘OTC’’) issues.

Nasdaq has provided such reports on an

ad hoc basis to customers requesting

this information by telephone. Investors

would contact a member of Nasdaq’s

staff via telephone, describe the type of

customized report desired, and arrange

for an appropriate billing and delivery

method before having the Nasdaq staff

member compile the report. Charges for

these reports were based on hourly rates

relative to the time required for

compilation and delivery of the reports.

Nasdaq believes the system was an

inefficient and time consuming

arrangement that was both burdensome

to Nasdaq staff and an impediment to

the accessibility of the information for

the investor.

As the number of individual investors

in today’s market directing their own

investment decisions has increased

significantly, the volume of requests for

this information also has increased. To

alleviate the demand upon staff

resources and increase the quality,

speed and availability of the

information, Nasdaq has developed an

automated request and delivery system

that will facilitate the delivery of these

reports in a timely and systematic

manner at a fixed price, based on a

standardized pricing methodology.

Investors will be able to access the

reports through the Internet on the

Nasdaq Trader.com (for Nasdaq issues)

and OTCBB.com (for OTCBB and other

OTC issues) web sites (or their successor

sites, by directing an Internet browser to

the appropriate web site. Once at the

proper location within the web site,

investors would choose from a list of

standardized reports, input the

necessary information pertaining to the

desired security or market participant,

and provide credit card information for

payment. 4 Once the request has been

completed, the report would be sent via

e-mail directly to the investor.

Nasdaq proposes to provide historical

research reports that fall into two

categories: ‘‘Daily Detailed Reports’’ and

‘‘Summary Level Activity Reports.’’

Examples of Daily Detailed Reports

include a Market Maker Price

Movement Report (displays all market

maker quote changes and the best bid

and offer throughout a chosen day for a

selected security) and a Time and Sales

Report (provides a record of mediareported trades in the selected security,

indicating the reported time, price and

share volume). Summary Level Activity

Reports would provide trade and/or

quote information over a monthly or

quarterly period.

Fees for the Daily Detailed Reports

would be set on a two-tiered basis to

reflect the amount of information

provided. Nasdaq proposes to assess a

fee of $7 for reports with 15 or fewer

fields of information 5 for each trading