Voss & Co., its former head trader and two principals in the firm have appealed to the Securities and Exchange Commission to try to overturn National Association Securities Dealers sanctions against them.

While the penalties are being appealed, they do not go into effect.

The NASD board of governors had suspended the Springfield firm (formerly Kulak, Voss & Co.) from NASD membership for five days and fined the company $2,000 for alleged violations of NASD rules, including failing to maintain accurate books and records, permitting individuals to sell stock without being registered with the NASD and permitting former head trader Richard M. Kulak to pay for securities with the proceeds from their sale.

The board also suspended Carole L. Haynes, who was vice president and treasurer at the time of the charges, from association with any NASD member in any capacity for five days. Kulak was suspended for 60 days from any job with an NASD member, barred from any managerial, supervisory or principal capacity and fined $2,500. President Stephen C. Voss was suspended from a job with a NASD member for five days.

Sanctions first were imposed in 1978 by a distict-level decision of the NASD. The NASD board of governors ruled against the company in March.

In an unrelated development, Voss, who is vice president of Noxso Corp., which hopes to acquire the rights to a process for cleaning goal gasses, said its initial stock offering had been sold. Voss said the 850,000 shared had been sold at $1.125 a share by 12 brokerage firms.

Over-the-counter trading of the stock will begin today, he said, although it will take a few weeks for the shareholders list to be certified for the firm to be listed in newspapers.

Noxso, which has offices in Reston, was a highly speculative offer. The company's chief asset is an option to acquire a laoratory process that may be capable of removing pollutants from flue gas generated by the burning of coal. With increasing reliance on coal as a source of energy, the company's prospects are good, principals in the firm have said.

The process is owned by Princeton Chemical Research Inc., whose application for a patent for the process has been denied. When the prospectus on the stock offering was written, Princeton was entitled to 50 percent of net profits derived from the process.

Since the prospectus was written, however, the agreement has been revised so that Princeton is entitled to only 40 percent of the first $20 million and 30 percent of earnings over $20 million.