April 13, 1998
     
Mr. Jonathan Katz
Secretary
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC   20549
     
RE:  SR-NASD-98-21
     
Dear Mr. Katz:
     
     
	As an active day trader and public customer, I would
like to express my reasons for opposition to the actual size rule 
and also to make an argument for the reimplimentation of the maximum 
spread rule.  My experience with the vast majority of the pilot stocks 
has proven to me that the result of these rule changes has been 
reduced liquidity and less favorable price fills for investors. 
While the inside quote spread may at times be narrow i.e. 1/8 or 1/4 
of a point, the quotes outside the inside quote are often 1/2, 3/4 or 
even a full point away. This lack of depth and lack of liquidity have 
resulted in an unfair environment for the individual investor and reduced 
responsibility for the market makers. The NASD studies that suggest more 
favorable spreads obviously have not mentioned the  ``effective spread`` 
or the resulting impact of lack of depth and low liquidity on the actual 
price at which the fill occurs. I have also noticed that the market makers 
take advantage of an ECN quote to reduce their quote size as the market 
begins a move toward them, this is nothing more than a convenient way for 
them to back away and not fill the order. A minimum order size and a maximum 
price spread requirement would obviously result in a more orderly and fair 
market environment for the individual while still allowing the market 
makers to profit from their participation. 
     
Sincerely, 
     
     
Kevin R Bressette
306 Palos Verdes Dr.
Austin,  TX 78734-4526
(512) 261-9431