Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 110 / Friday, June 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 32261 

2Commission regulation 150.2 imposes three 

types of position limits for each specified contract: 

a spot month limit, a single-month limit, and an allmonths-combined limit. The Commission most 

recently adopted amendments to levels for Federal 

speculative position limits in 2005. See 70 FR 

24705 (May 11, 2005). 

3The New York Board of Trade was acquired by 

ICE Futures U.S. in January, 2007. 

4 72 FR 74213 (December 31, 2007). 

5Federal Register Comment File 07–014, 

available at http://www.cftc.gov/lawandregulation/

federalregister/federalregistercomments/2007/07– 

014.html. 

6Risk Management Exemption from Federal 

Speculative Position Limits, 72 FR 66097 

(November 27, 2007) (to be withdrawn). 

1Risk Management Exemption from Federal 

Speculative Position Limits, 72 FR 66097 

(November 27, 2007). 

facsimile number (202) 418–5507, email mmurray@cftc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission has long established and 

enforced speculative position limits for 

futures contracts on various agricultural 

commodities. The Commission 

periodically reviews these Federal 

speculative position limits, which are 

set out in Commission regulation 

150.2.2 On November 21, 2007, the 

Commission published its proposed 

rulemaking to increase Federal 

speculative position limits for all singlemonth and all-months-combined 

positions in all commodity markets 

enumerated in Commission regulation 

150.2, except Chicago Board of Trade 

(CBT) Oats, based on the formula set out 

in Commission regulation 150.5(c). The 

rulemaking proposed to increase levels 

for single-month and all-monthscombined positions for CBT Corn, 

Soybeans, Wheat, Soybean Oil, and 

Soybean Meal; Minneapolis Grain 

Exchange Hard Red Spring Wheat; 

Kansas City Board of Trade Hard Winter 

Wheat; and New York Board of Trade 3

Cotton No. 2. In addition, the 

rulemaking proposed to require the 

aggregation of positions in contracts that 

share substantially identical terms with 

regulation 150.2-enumerated contracts, 

regardless of whether such contracts 

were specifically delineated in that 

regulation, for the purposes of 

ascertaining traders’ compliance with 

the Federal speculative position limits. 

The Commission requested public 

comment by December 21, 2007. On 

December 31, 2007, the Commission 

extended the initial comment period to 

January 21, 2008 to give interested 

parties additional opportunity to 

comment.4 The Commission received a 

total of 40 comment letters in response 

to its Federal Register publication.5 Six 

letters generally favored the proposed 

regulations and 34 letters were generally 

opposed to their adoption. An 

Agricultural Forum held by the 

Commission on April 22, 2008 served as 

an additional venue for the presentation 

of views with respect to the proposed 

rulemaking and a related Commission 

proposal to adopt a risk management 

exemption from the Federal speculative 

position limits.6

Collectively, the comments received 

in response to the proposed rulemaking 

and at the Commission’s April 22 

Agricultural Forum reflected differing 

perspectives on a wide range of issues 

of substantive import to the proposed 

rulemaking. The issues covered by the 

commenters, both in favor and opposed 

to the Commission’s proposal to revise 

the Federal speculative position limits, 

included product margin requirements, 

the convergence of cash and futures 

transaction prices, the impact of 

commodity-linked instruments traded 

on national securities exchanges on 

CFTC regulated transactions, the degree 

of transparency for market participation, 

and the quantification of the impact of 

speculative trading on market volatility. 

In light of the wide range of divergent 

positions that have been put forth by 

interested parties, the current market 

conditions for the contracts that would 

be affected by the proposed rulemaking, 

and in order to determine whether 

further consensus among the affected 

parties should be sought, the 

Commission has determined to 

withdraw the proposed rulemaking 

pending further consideration of the 

relevant issues. 

Issued by the Commission this June 2, 

2008, in Washington, DC. 

David Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–12728 Filed 6–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Part 150 

RIN 3038–AC40 

Risk Management Exemption From 

Federal Speculative Position Limits 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rules; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: On November 27, 2007, the 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (Commission or CFTC) 

published proposed rules to create a 

‘‘risk management exemption’’ from 

Federal speculative position limits—the 

limits on the size of speculative 

positions that traders may hold or 

control in futures and futures equivalent 

option contracts on certain designated 

agricultural commodities. The 

Commission has determined to 

withdraw these proposed rules. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donald Heitman, Senior Special 

Counsel, Division of Market Oversight, 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20581, telephone (202) 418–5041, 

facsimile number (202) 418–5507, 

electronic mail dheitman@cftc.gov; or 

John Fenton, Director of Surveillance, 

Division of Market Oversight, telephone 

(202) 418–5298, facsimile number (202) 

418–5507, electronic mail 

jfenton@cftc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Commission regulation 150.2 imposes 

limits on the size of speculative 

positions that traders may hold or 

control in futures and futures equivalent 

option contracts on certain designated 

agricultural commodities named 

therein. Commission regulation 150.3 

lists certain types of positions that may 

be exempted from these Federal 

speculative position limits. 

On November 27, 2007, the 

Commission published proposed 

amendments that would provide an 

additional exemption from Federal 

speculative position limits for ‘‘risk 

management positions’’ (proposed 

rulemaking).1 The proposal defined a 

risk management position as a futures or 

futures equivalent position, held as part 

of a broadly diversified portfolio of 

long-only or short-only futures or 

futures equivalent positions, that is 

based upon either: (1) A fiduciary 

obligation to match or track the results 

of a broadly diversified index that 

includes the same commodity markets 

in fundamentally the same proportions 

as the futures or futures equivalent 

position; or (2) a portfolio 

diversification plan that has, among 

other substantial asset classes, an 

exposure to a broadly diversified index 

that includes the same commodity 

markets in fundamentally the same 

proportions as the futures or futures 

equivalent position. The exemption, as 

proposed, would have been subject to 

certain conditions, including that the 

positions be passively managed, 

unleveraged, and not carried into the 

spot month. 

The Commission requested public 

comment by January 28, 2008. The 

Commission received a total of 10 

comment letters in response to its 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
32262 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 110 / Friday, June 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

2Federal Register Comment File 07–015, 

available at http://www.cftc.gov/lawandregulation/

federalregister/federalregistercomments/2007/07–

015.html. 

3Revision of Federal Speculative Position Limits, 

72 FR 65483 (November 21, 2007) (to be 

withdrawn). 

Federal Register publication.2 Three 

letters generally favored the proposed 

regulations and seven letters were 

generally opposed to their adoption. An 

Agricultural Forum held by the 

Commission on April 22, 2008 served as 

an additional venue for the presentation 

of views with respect to the proposed 

rulemaking and a related Commission 

proposal to revise the Federal 

speculative position limits delineated in 

Commission regulation 150.2.3

Collectively, the comments received 

in response to the proposed rulemaking 

and at the Commission’s April 22 

Agricultural Forum reflected differing 

perspectives on a wide range of issues 

of substantive import to the proposed 

rulemaking. The issues covered by the 

commenters, both in favor and opposed 

to the Commission’s proposal to adopt 

a risk management exemption from the 

Federal speculative position limits, 

included product margin requirements, 

the convergence of cash and futures 

transaction prices, the impact of 

commodity-linked instruments traded 

on national securities exchanges on 

CFTC regulated transactions, the degree 

of transparency for market participation, 

and the quantification of the impact of 

speculative trading on market volatility. 

In light of the wide range of divergent 

positions that have been put forth by 

interested parties, the current market 

conditions for the contracts that would 

be affected by the proposed rulemaking, 

and in order to determine whether 

further consensus among the affected 

parties should be sought, the 

Commission has determined to 

withdraw the proposed rulemaking 

pending further consideration of the 

relevant issues. 

Issued by the Commission June 2, 2008, in 

Washington, DC. 

David Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–12723 Filed 6–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 75 

[Docket No. CRM 105; AG Order No. 2966–

2008] 

RIN 1105–AB19 

Inspection of Records Relating to 

Depiction of Simulated Sexually 

Explicit Performances 

AGENCY: Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend 

record-keeping, labeling, and inspection 

requirements to implement provisions 

of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and 

Safety Act of 2006 that require 

producers of depictions of simulated 

sexually explicit conduct to maintain 

records documenting that performers in 

those depictions are at least 18 years of 

age. The rule also implements 

provisions of the Adam Walsh Act that 

create a certification regime for the 

exemption of producers, in certain 

circumstances, from those requirements 

and from similar requirements for 

producers of visual depictions of the 

lascivious exhibition of the genitals or 

pubic area of a person. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by August 5, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted to: Andrew Oosterbaan, 

Chief, Child Exploitation and Obscenity 

Section, Criminal Division, United 

States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC 20530; Attn: ‘‘Docket 

No. CRM 105.’’

Comments may be submitted 

electronically to www.regulations.gov by 

using the electronic comment form 

provided on that site. Comments 

submitted electronically must include 

‘‘Docket No. CRM 105’’ in the subject 

box. You may also view an electronic 

version of this rule at the 

www.regulations.gov site. 

Facsimile comments may be 

submitted to: (202) 514–1793. This is 

not a toll-free number. Comments 

submitted by facsimile must include 

‘‘Docket No. CRM 105’’ on the cover 

sheet. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Oosterbaan, Chief, Child 

Exploitation and Obscenity Section, 

Criminal Division, United States 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20530; (202) 514–5780. This is not a 

toll-free number. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

Please note that because the 

Department of Justice is now fully 

operational using the 

www.regulations.gov site, the Child 

Exploitation and Obscenity Section, 

Criminal Division has deactivated the 

e-mail address for electronic comments 

that it published in rulemakings before 

the Department started using 

www.regulations.gov. In order to ensure 

that electronic comments are received 

by the Department, commenters 

submitting electronic comments must 

use the electronic comment form 

provided on the www.regulations.gov 

site. 

Please also note that all comments 

received are considered part of the 

public record and made available for 

public inspection online at 

www.regulations.gov. Such information 

includes personal identifying 

information (such as your name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter. 

If you want to submit personal 

identifying information (such as your 

name, address, etc.) as part of your 

comment, but do not want it to be 

posted online, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You also must locate 

all the personal identifying information 

you do not want posted online in the 

first paragraph of your comment and 

identify in that paragraph what 

information you want redacted. 

If you want to submit confidential 

business information as part of your 

comment but do not want it to be posted 

online, you must include the phrase 

‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You also must 

identify prominently any confidential 

business information to be redacted 

within the comment. If a comment has 

so much confidential business 

information that it cannot be effectively 

redacted, all or part of that comment 

might not be posted on 

www.regulations.gov. 

Personal identifying information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will be placed in the agency’s public 

docket file, but not posted online. 

Confidential business information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will not be placed in the public docket 

file. If you wish to inspect the agency’s 

public docket file in person by 

appointment, please see the ‘‘For 

Additional Information’’ paragraph. 

Discussion 

On July 27, 2006, President George W. 

Bush signed into law the Adam Walsh 

Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, 

Public Law 109–248 (‘‘the Act’’). As 

described in more detail below, section 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS