[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8426-8430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3569]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-35341; File Nos. SR-AMEX-94-59; SR-CBOE-94-49; SR-CHX-
94-27; SR-MSRB-94-17; SR-NASD-94-72; SR-NYSE-94-43; SR-PSE-94-35; and
SR-PHLX-94-52]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order Approving Proposed Rule
Changes by the American Stock Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board, National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., New
York Stock Exchange, Inc., Pacific Stock Exchange Inc., and
Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., Relating to a Continuing Education
Requirement for Registered Persons
February 8, 1995.
I. Introduction
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ on November 30 and December
1, 5, 7, 12, 13, and 14, 1994, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Incorporated
(``CHX''), the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''),
the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE''), the National Association
of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''), the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board (``MSRB'') and the Pacific Stock Exchange Incorporated
(``PSE''), the American Stock Exchange, Inc. (``AMEX''), and the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``PHLX''), respectively (``Self-
Regulatory Organizations'' or ``SROs''), submitted to the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'') proposed rule
changes to establish a formal, two-part continuing education program
for securities industry professionals. This program includes a
Regulatory Element requiring uniform, periodic training in regulatory
matters, and a Firm Element requiring members\3\ to maintain ongoing
programs to keep their registered persons\4\ up-to-date on job and
product related subjects.
\1\15 U.S.C. Sec. 78s(b)(1) (1988).
\2\17 CFR 240.19b-4 (1994).
\3\As used herein, the term ``members'' refers to: members and
member organizations when used with reference to the AMEX, CBOE,
CHX, NYSE, and PSE; members, member organizations, participants, and
participant organizations when used with reference to the PHLX;
brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers when used with
reference to the MSRB; and members when used with reference to the
NASD.
\4\For purposes of the proposed rules, the term ``registered
person'' means any person required to be registered under the rules
of the applicable SRO, including members and registered
representatives, but does not include any person whose activities
are limited solely to the transaction of business on the floor of a
national securities exchange with members or registered broker-
dealers. When used with reference to the MSRB, however, the term
``registered person'' means any person registered with the
appropriate enforcement authority as a municipal securities
representative, municipal securities principal, municipal securities
sales principal, or financial and operations principal pursuant to
MSRB rule G-3. [[Page 8427]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SROs' proposals were published for comment in the Federal
Register on December 20, 1994.\5\ Two comments were received, and are
discussed below. On January 30, and 31 and February 1, and 2, 1995, the
NASD, CHX, CBOE, MSRB, PSE, AMEX, NYSE, and PHLX each filed Amendment
No. 1 to their respective proposals.\6\ These amendments made a variety
of non-substantive, clarifying changes to the proposals and are
incorporated into the discussion below.\7\ This order approves the
SROs' proposals, including all amendments made thereto.
\5\Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35102 (December 15,
1994), 59 FR 65563 (December 20, 1994).
\6\See letters from Craig L. Landauer, Associate General
Counsel, NASD, to Mark P. Barraccca, Branch Chief, Division of
Market Regulation (``Division''), SEC, dated January 19, 1995, and
Francois Mazur, Attorney, Division, SEC, dated January 30, 1995
(``NASD Amendment No. 1''); letter from David T. Rusoff, Foley &
Lardner, to Francois Mazur, Attorney, Division, SEC, dated January
30, 1995 (``CHX Amendment No. 1''); letter from Arthur B. Reinstein,
Senior Attorney, CBOE, to Holly Smith, Associate Director, Division,
SEC, dated January 31, 1995 (``CBOE Amendment No. 1''); letter from
Ronald W. Smith, Legal Associate, MSRB, to Francois Mazur, Attorney,
Division, SEC, dated February 1, 1995 (``MSRB Amendment No. 1'');
letter from Michael D. Pierson, Senior Attorney, PSE, to Francois
Mazur, Attorney, Division, SEC, dated February 1, 1995 (``PSE
Amendment No. 1''); letter from Claire P. McGrath, Managing Director
and Special Counsel, Derivative Securities, AMEX,to Glen Barrentine,
Team Leader, Division, SEC, dated February 1, 1995 (``AMEX Amendment
No. 1''); letter from James E. Buck, Senior Vice President and
Secretary, NYSE, to Francois Mazur, Attorney, Division, SEC, dated
February 1, 1995 (``NYSE Amendment No. 1''); and letter from Gerald
D. O'Connell, First Vice President, Market Regulation and Trading
Operations, PHLX, to Glen Barrentine, Team Leader, Division, SEC,
dated February 2, 1995 (``PHLX Amendment No. 1'').
\7\Among other things, the SROs' Amendments No. 1 made
conforming changes to clarify the wording of the re-entry provisions
of the rule proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of Proposals
The proposed rule changes adopt uniform enabling rules for the
implementation of a continuing education program for the securities
industry.
A. Background
In May 1993, a self-regulatory organization task force (``Task
Force'') was formed by the AMEX, CBOE, MSRB, NASD, NYSE, and PHLX,
which also included 12 representatives from a wide range of broker-
dealer firms, to study the continuing education needs of the securities
industry. In September 1993, the Task Force issued a report
recommending a formal two-part continuing education program that would
require uniform, industry-wide, periodic training for registered
persons in regulatory matters and ongoing training programs conducted
by firms to keep their employees updated on job and product-related
subjects. The Task Force also recommended that a permanent Council on
Continuing Education, composed of broker-dealer and SRO
representatives, be formed to develop the content and provide ongoing
maintenance of the continuing education program. Pursuant to this
recommendation, the Securities Industry/Regulatory Council on
Continuing Education (``Council'') was formed in September 1993, with
representatives from six SROs and thirteen broker-dealers.
After studying the recommendations of the Council, the SROs
participating in the Council submitted proposed rule changes with the
Commission to adopt continuing education requirements. The proposed
rule changes could codify the Task Force's recommendations, allow
uniform implementation of the continuing education program, and provide
a means for the SROs to monitor and enforce the program's requirements.
B. The Regulatory Element
The Regulatory Element requires uniform, periodic training in a
variety of regulatory subjects. It provides that registered persons,
unless exempt, must complete a prescribed training program after their
second, fifth, and tenth registration anniversary dates.\8\ The
Regulatory Element will not apply to registered persons whose
activities are limited solely to the transaction of business on the
floor of a national securities exchange with members or registered
broker-dealers.\9\ The Regulatory Element also will not apply to
persons registered for more than ten years as of the effective date of
the rule, unless such persons become subject to the re-entry provisions
described below. Persons registered for ten years or less as of the
effective date of the rule will be required to satisfy the Regulatory
Element and complete the computer-based training program after the
occurrence of the next relevant registration anniversary date and on
any applicable registration anniversary date(s) thereafter.\10\
\8\Any registered person who has terminated his or her
association with a member and who, within two years of the date of
termination, becomes reassociated in a registered capacity with a
member, would be required to complete the training program at such
intervals (two, five, and ten years) as would apply based upon the
individuals' initial registration anniversary date rather than the
date of reassociation in a registered capacity. In the event a non-
associated person's second, fifth, or tenth anniversary date passes
without such individual completing the appropriate phase of the
training program on a timely basis, that person would be required to
complete such phase prior to becoming reassociated in a registered
capacity.
\9\Amendments No. 1 as filed by the NYSE, AMEX, CBOE, CHX, PSE,
and PHLX revised the language of the proposal to clarify that the
foregoing exemption covers non-member registered persons as well as
registered persons who are members. See supra note 6.
\10\As a result, a person whose tenth year anniversary date
falls on the implementation date of the continuing education
requirement would have to participate in the Regulatory Element
within 120 days of that date. Alternatively, a person registered
more than ten years on the implementation date, and not subject to a
disciplinary action within the last ten years, would not have to
participate in the Regulatory Element.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Regulatory Element will be administered using computer-based
interactive training techniques and will consist of standardized
subject matters covering compliance, ethics, and sales practice issues,
among other subjects. Failure to complete the program within prescribed
time-frames (i.e., within 120 days after the occurrence of the
applicable registration anniversary date, or as otherwise determined by
the SROs) will result in a person's registration being deemed inactive
and that person being prohibited from performing the functions of a
registered person until such time as the person has completed the
program. The applicable SRO will terminate administratively the
registration of anyone who is inactive for two years, provided that
upon application and a showing of good cause, the SRO may allow a
registered person additional time to satisfy the program
requirements.\11\
\11\Anyone administratively terminated must requalify by taking
the appropriate exam (e.g., the General Securities Registered
Representative Examination or ``Series 7'') before such person's
registration could be reactivated. The Commission recently approved
the use of a revised Series 7 examination. See Securities Exchange
Act Release Nos. 35021 (November 29, 1994), 59 FR 62768 (December 6,
1994) (approving PHLX proposal), and 34853 (October 18, 1994), 59 FR
53694 (October 25, 1994) (approving NYSE proposal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless otherwise determined by a self-regulatory organization, a
registered person, including anyone who has completed all or part of
the Regulatory Element of the program or who meets the exemption for
persons registered more than ten years, will be required to re-enter
the Regulatory Element and satisfy all of its requirements in the event
such person: [[Page 8428]]
1. because subject to any statutory disqualification as defined in
Section 3(a)(39) of the Act;\12\
\12\15 U.S.C. Sec. 78c(a)(39) (1988 & Supp. 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. becomes subject to suspension or to the imposition of a fine of
$5,000 or more for violation of any provision of any securities law or
regulation; or any agreement with, or rule or standard of conduct of,
any securities governmental agency, securities self-regulatory
organization, or as imposed by any such regulatory or self-regulatory
organization in connection with a disciplinary proceeding; or
3. is ordered as a sanction in a disciplinary action to re-enter
the continuing education program by any securities governmental agency
or securities self-regulatory organization.\13\
\13\Amendment No. 1 as filed by the SROs revised the language of
the proposal to provide that an order to re-enter the continuing
education program may be made by any securities governmental agency
or securities self-regulatory organization. Previously, the proposal
provided that such an order was to be made only by the ``Commission,
any securities self-regulatory organization or any state securities
agency.'' See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re-entry begins with initial participation within 120 days of the
registered person become subject to the statutory disqualification, or
the disciplinary action becoming final, and on three additional
occasions thereafter, at intervals of two, five, and ten years after
re-entry.\14\ Although the re-entry provision applies notwithstanding
that a registered person has completed all or part of the program
requirements based on length of time as a registered person or
completion of ten years of participation in the program, it does not
apply any registered person whose activities are limited solely to the
transaction of business on the floor with the registered persons.\15\
\14\Amendment No. 1 as filed by the SROs revised the language of
the proposal to clarify that the 120 day period would start to run
upon a registered person becoming subject to a statutory
disqualification as well as within 120 days of a disciplinary action
being final. Id.
\15\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The Firm Element
To satisfy the Firm Element of the program, SRO members are
required to develop and administer training programs to enhance the
knowledge, skills, and professionalism of their registered sales,
trading, and investment banking personnel who have direct contact with
customers, and for the immediate supervisors of such persons. Members
must prepare training plans that take into consideration the
organization's size, organizational structure, scope of business
activities, and regulatory developments. In addition, training plans
should take advantage of the feedback that will be generated from the
Regulatory Element regarding the performance of covered persons. At a
minimum, programs used to implement a member's training plan must be
appropriate for the business and associated risk factors, suitability
and sales practice considerations, and applicable regulatory
requirements, of the securities products offered by the member.
Members will be required to review and, if necessary, update their
training plans annually. The SROs may require their members, either
individually or as part of a group, to provide specific training in any
areas the SROs deem necessary. Persons subject to the training plan
will have an affirmative obligation to participate in the programs
identified by the member. Accordingly, members will be required to
maintain records documenting the content of their training programs and
the completion of the program by registered persons covered under the
plan.
The SROs will not pre-approve training materials and programs
developed by members or providers. The SROs will, however, communicate
regularly with members regarding their expectations for the content of
training programs. As the program evolves, it is expected that
educational standards will be defined by the SROs for products and
services where heightened regulatory concerns exist.
D. Effective Date
The effective date for the Regulatory Element portion of the
program is July 1, 1995. Any person registered ten years or less as of
the effective date shall participate initially within 120 days after
the occurrence of such person's second, fifth, or tenth registration
anniversary date, whichever anniversary date first applies. The SROs
intend that the requirements of the Firm Element be implemented in two
steps under which members will be required to have completed their Firm
Element plans by July 1995, with actual implementation of the plans no
later than January, 1996.
III. Comments Received by the Commission
The Commission received two comment letters regarding the SROs'
proposals, one from the Boston Stock Exchange (``BSE''),\16\ and the
other from the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc.
(``CFPBS'').\17\ The BSE supports the SROs' proposals and believes that
implementation of the continuing education program will elevate the
quality of the securities markets and increase the level of service and
protection afforded investors.
\16\See letter from John I. Fitzgerald, Executive Vice
President, Legal Affairs and Trading Services, BSE, to Jonathan G.
Katz, Secretary, SEC, dated January 25, 1995.
\17\See letter from Robert P. Goss, CFP, Executive Director,
CFPBS, to Secretary, SEC, dated January 4, 1995. The CFPBS
establishes qualifications for initial professional certification
that include education, examination, experience, and ethics
requirements. In addition, it develops and administers continuing
post-certification requirements and disciplinary procedures for its
licensees. The CFPBS licenses nearly 30,000 persons in the United
States, of whom approximately 18,000 are licensed to sell
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFPBS is concerned that certain requirements of the Firm
Element could impose continuing education requirements beyond those
currently imposed by the CFPBS upon its licensees. The CFPBS would like
the continuing education requirements proposed by the SROs to be
completely reciprocal with those of the CFPBS.
While the Commission is sympathetic to the concerns of the CFPBS,
it believes that the specialized knowledge expected of individuals who
are licensed to sell securities warrant the imposition by the SROs of
educational requirements that exceed those required by the CFPBS of its
licensees.
IV. Comments Solicited By the SROs
On August 15, 1994, the NASD published Special Notice to Members
(``NTM'') 94-59 to request comment regarding the NASD's draft rules to
create a mandated continuing education program for the securities
industry. thirty-three comment letters were received in response, of
which five opposed the proposal, and the remaining commenters either
expressed support for, or were not opposed to, the proposal. In
addition, on August 15, 1994, the MSRB published its proposed
Continuing Education Requirement, Rule G-3, and subsequently received
five comment letters.\18\ The NYSE received one comment letter.
\18\MSRB Reports, Vol. 14, No. 4 (August 15, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Comments Regarding the Regulatory Element
Several commenters expressed concern about certain provisions of
the draft rules. These concerns include a perceived ambiguity regarding
when registered persons must participate in the Regulatory Element; the
effects of inactive status and how to reactivate registration; and the
apparent ability of the SEC and the SROs arbitrarily to mandate re-
entry into the Regulatory Element. The SROs subsequently addressed
these concerns in the [[Page 8429]] proposals they filed with the
Commission.\19\
\19\See infra, Part IV, Section C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other concerns were raised with respect to the Regulatory Element,
including its cost and focus (some found its scope too broad, others
too narrow). Concern also was expressed that the re-entry provision's
disciplinary fine threshold was ambiguous as written and could be
unfair in application. Other commenters focused on the statistics to be
generated by the Regulatory Element. Specifically, they were concerned
about the types of statistics that would be available, and the intended
and acceptable uses of such statistics.
Several commenters were concerned that the Regulatory Element would
only be administered at NASD operated testing centers. Suggested
alternatives included administering the Regulatory Element at firms,
subject to appropriate controls, and reliance on third party
interactive programs similar to those provided to the futures industry.
One commenter suggested that the securities industry model the
Regulatory Element after state insurance continuing education programs,
in which the licensing authority imposes the regulatory requirement
directly on the individual, rather than on the firm. Another suggestion
was that the Central Registration Depository (``CRD'')\20\ help firms
comply with the Regulatory Element. Specifically, CRD could be used by
firms to determine the length of service of their registered persons
and to identify those that would be subject to the Regulatory Element
in each of the next few years.
\20\CRD is a computerized filing and data processing system
operated by the NASD that maintains registration information
regarding registered broker-dealers and their registered personnel
for access by state regulators, SROs, and the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Comments Regarding the Firm Element
A concern expressed by several commenters regarding the Firm
Element was the cost it will impose on smaller firms. To mitigate this
effect, it was suggested that the SROs prepare and administer training
programs; provide subsidies to smaller firms to help them comply with
the Firm Element; or that a video satellite program be created that
would enable firms to secure qualified speakers, and include material
that would comply with the Firm Element.
Several commenters stated that the standards for the Firm Element
are too vague to allow firms to ensure proper compliance. Some
commenters suggested that the Firm Element focus on suitability, and
that some form of pre-approval be provided regarding the contents of a
firm's program. Another commenter questioned the usefulness of feedback
from the Regulatory Element in developing an appropriate Firm Element.
Concern also was expressed regarding the apparent authority of an SRO
arbitrarily to prescribe specific training for a member firm. Finally,
there was uncertainty regarding those who would be deemed ``covered
persons.''
C. Response to Comments
In their filings with the Commission, the SROs addressed certain of
the commenters' concerns by making three technical changes to the
Regulatory Element portion of the rules as originally drafted. First,
the SROs revised the rules to state clearly that registered persons
must participate in the Regulatory Element on three occasions: after
the occurrence of their second, fifth, and tenth registration
anniversary dates. Second, the SROs expanded the provision concerning
failure to complete the Regulatory Element to state that a registration
that is inactive for a period of two calendar years would be terminated
administratively, and that a person whose registration is so terminated
must requalify by taking the appropriate examination, before such
person's registration could be reactivated. Third, the SROs revised the
re-entry provision of the Regulatory Element to clarify that a
securities governmental agency or securities SRO could only require re-
entry into the program in connection with a sanction in a disciplinary
action. This change is meant to address the concerns of those
commenting on the due process issues that could arise if regulatory
authorities were able to mandate re-entry arbitrarily.
In response to comments received, the Council has stated that the
CRD system will be used to track and communicate anniversary dates and
evidence of completion of the Regulatory Element. The Regulatory
Element's computer based systems will also capture, store, and analyze
data that will indicate who took the training, when, and where, as well
as other information.
V. Discussion
The Commission believes that the SROs' proposed rule changes are
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to national securities exchanges,
national securities associations, and the MSRB and, in particular, the
respective requirements of Sections 6(b)(5), 15A(b)(6), and
15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act.\21\ Sections 6(b)(5), 15A(b)(6), and
15B(b)(2)(C) require, among other things, that the rules of an
exchange, an association, or the MSRB, respectively, be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public
interest. The Commission further believes that the proposed rule
changes also are consistent with the respective provisions of Sections
6(c)(3)(B), 15A(g)(3)(A), and 15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act,\22\ each of
which makes it the responsibility of an exchange, an association, or
the MSRB to prescribe standards of training, experience and competence
for persons associated with SRO members.
\21\15 U.S.C. Secs. 78f(b)(5), 78o-3(b)(6), and 78o-4(b)(2)(C)
(1988).
\22\15 U.S.C. Secs. 78f(c)(3)(B), 78o-3(g)(3)(A), and 78o-
4(b)(2)(A) (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the purposes underlying Section 15(b)(7) of the
Act,\23\ which generally prohibits a registered broker-dealer from
effecting any transaction in, or inducing the purchase or sale of, any
security unless such broker-dealer meets the standards of training
experience, competence, and other qualifications as the Commission
finds necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the
protection of investors.\24\ The Commission believes that the SROs'
proposals to impose affirmative obligations on registered persons on a
continuing basis are an appropriate means of maintaining and
reinforcing the qualification standards applicable when a person first
is registered. Moreover, it is Commission policy to rely principally on
the SROs for the formulation and administration of qualification
standards, subject to Commission review and oversight.\25\
\23\15 U.S.C. Sec. 78o(b)(7) (1988).
\24\Id.
\25\See Rule 15b7-1 under the Act, 17 CFR 240.15b7-1 (1994), and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32261 (May 4, 1993), 58 FR 27656
(May 11, 1993) (in adopting Rule 15b7-1 to require broker-dealers to
comply with SRO qualification standards, the Commission stated that
it has been longstanding Commission policy to rely principally on
the SROs in the formulation and administration of qualification
standards, subject to Commission review and oversight).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SROs' proposals convey broadly applicable information relating
to compliance, regulatory, ethical, and general sales practice
standards, as well as job related material for specific professional
areas and products. The SROs have divided the continuing
[[Page 8430]] education program into two parts: The Regulatory Element,
which emphasizes subjects regarding legal and ethical standards, and
the Firm Element, which contemplates the timely transmission of product
related information to maintain and expand individuals' professional
knowledge. Taken together, the Elements form the basis for an
educational program that should ensure that registered persons have the
training and knowledge necessary to conduct themselves in an
appropriate professional manner, over the course of their careers. The
Commission also notes that the re-entry provision of the Regulatory
Element, which is triggered by disciplinary action, will ensure that
those individuals who have not complied with all applicable regulatory
requirements, receive further training as a condition to their re-entry
into business.
The Commission believes that a continuing education requirement for
persons in the securities industry, administered pursuant to industry
developed standards, will benefit public investors as a result of the
increased knowledge and enhanced understanding of regulatory and
ethical standards by industry members. SRO qualification of registered
persons of broker-dealers is of critical importance in promoting
compliance with the requirements of the federal securities laws.
Increasing the sensitivity of registered persons to regulatory and
ethical matters also should enhance investor confidence in the
securities industry. Moreover, the recent attention that has been
devoted to derivatives underscores the need for securities industry
personnel to receive thorough training in the products in which they
deal.
The SROs have noted that the Regulatory Element of the program
initially will be administered only in the NASD's testing centers,
stating that this is necessary to allow the NASD to manage the
introduction of the program in a reasonable manner. Nevertheless,
interest has been expressed in permitting member firms either to
administer the Regulatory Element in-house, or to solicit the services
of outside vendors. While recognizing the concerns of the Council and
the SROs regarding the technological and administrative issues that
arise in connection with the in-house administration of the Regulatory
Element, the Commission encourages the Council and the SROs to continue
to study whether practical and reasonable alternatives to the NASD's
testing centers can be developed.\26\
\26\Specifically, delivery of the Regulatory Element other than
through the NASD's testing centers would require that appropriate
safeguards be developed to ensure the integrity of the program and
the ability to capture the necessary information for feedback.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes with approval that the Firm Element Committee
of the Council is developing guidelines for dealers' use in devising
and carrying out training programs to meet the requirements of the Firm
Element, including providing guidance as to how different firms might
approach the requirements (e.g., firms that deal with one product,
small firms, and firms with large numbers of very small offices or solo
representatives).
These guidelines will offer suggestions intended to help firms
devise appropriate and reasonable programs consistent with their own
unique characteristics and businesses. The Commission believes that
such guidance will particularly benefit smaller firms and should lessen
their costs of compliance with the Firm Element. The Commission
encourages the SROs, as they gain experience with the continuing
education program, to continue such efforts.
VI. Conclusion
It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\27\ that the proposed rule changes (File Nos. SR-AMEX-94-59, SR-
CBOE-94-49, SR-CHX-94-27, SR-MSRB-94-17, SR-NASD-94-72, SR-NYSE-94-43,
SR-PSE-94-35, and SR-PHLX-94-52) are approved.
\27\15 U.S.C. Sec. 78s(b)(2) (1988).
By the Commission.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-3569 Filed 2-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
