AGENCY: Department of Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule finalizes two proposed rules and amends the record-keeping,

labeling, and inspection requirements to account for changes in the underlying statute

made by Congress in enacting the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

DATES: This rule is effective [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF

of this rule apply to producers of visual depictions of the lascivious exhibition of the

genitals or pubic area of a person and producers of simulated sexually explicit conduct as

of [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL

REGISTER].

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:

2

The Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, Public Law 100-

690, codified at 18 U.S.C. 2257, imposes certain name- and age-verification, recordkeeping,

and labeling requirements on producers of visual depictions of actual human

beings engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Specifically, section 2257 requires

producers of such material to “ascertain, by examination of an identification document

containing such information, the performer’s name and date of birth,” to “ascertain any

name, other than the performer’s present and correct name, ever used by the performer

including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name,” and to record and

maintain this information. 18 U.S.C. 2257(b). Violations of these record-keeping

requirements are criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment of not more than five

provisions criminalizing the production and distribution of materials visually depicting

The regulations in 28 CFR part 75 implement section 2257. On May 24, 2005,

the Department of Justice (“the Department”) published a final rule that updated those

regulations to account for changes in technology, particularly the Internet, and to

implement the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of

Records Relating to Depiction of Sexually Explicit Performances, 70 FR 29607 (May 24,

2005) (CRM 103; RIN 1105-AB05).

3

On July 27, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Adam Walsh

Child Protection and Safety Act, Pub. L. 109-248 (“the Adam Walsh Act” or “the Act”).

As described in more detail below, the Act made a number of changes to section 2257

and added section 2257A to title 18, imposing similar record-keeping requirements on

producers of visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct. Furthermore, the

Act created a certification regime for producers of such conduct and for producers of

depictions of one type of actual sexually explicit conduct to exempt them from the

detailed regulatory requirements.

This final rule amends the regulations in part 75 to comport with these statutory

changes. As described in more detail below, the Department published two separate

proposed rules, one to implement the revision to section 2257 and the other to implement

the requirements of section 2257A with regard to simulated sexually explicit conduct and

its certification regime. This rule finalizes both proposed rules in one rulemaking in

order to simplify and coordinate implementation of the Adam Walsh Act. Most

importantly, this approach ensures that the requirements of revised section 2257 go into

effect in coordination with the effectiveness of the certification regime applicable to it.

The final rule also makes numerous changes to the proposed rules that will simplify the

regulatory process and lessen the burden on businesses covered by the Act.

Background

Protecting children from sexual exploitation is one of government’s most

important responsibilities. Children are incapable of giving voluntary and knowing

consent to perform in pornography. Furthermore, children often are forced to engage in

sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing pornography. For these reasons,

4

visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct that involve persons under the age of 18

Establishing the identity of every performer in a depiction of sexually explicit

conduct is critical to ensuring that no performer is a minor and that, hence, the depiction

is not child pornography. Section 2257 has facilitated identification and age-verification

efforts by requiring producers to ascertain the identity and age of performers in their

depictions and to maintain records evidencing such compliance. Producers are less likely

as a result of these requirements to exploit children and to create child pornography

through carelessness, recklessness, or deliberate indifference. As for those who

intentionally produce material depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, the

statute and regulations provide an additional basis for prosecuting such individuals

besides the applicable child-exploitation statutes. In addition, the statute and the

regulations “deprive child pornographers of access to commercial markets by requiring

secondary producers to inspect (and keep a record of) the primary producers’ proof that

“sexually explicit conduct” by referencing that term in section 2256(2)(A), part 75 will

apply to depictions of “lascivious exhibition.”

With regard to simulated sexually explicit conduct, it is crucial to note that Chapter

110 of title 18 of the U.S. Code (“Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children”)

already covers both actual and simulated sexually explicit conduct. Specifically, it

defines “sexually explicit conduct” as:

genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between

persons of the same or opposite sex; (ii) bestiality; (iii) masturbation; (iv)

sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or

pubic area of any person;

(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) of this section [part of the

definition of “child pornography”], “sexually explicit conduct” means—(i)

graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, analgenital,

or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex,

6

pubic area of any person is exhibited; (ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;

(I) bestiality; (II) masturbation; or (III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or

of any person . . . .

18 U.S.C. 2256(2) (emphases added).

Numerous States’ child-exploitation statutes refer to both simulated and actual

Ann. § 5-27-302; Cal. Penal Code § 311.11; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-6-403; Conn. Gen.

Stat. § 53a-193; Fla. Stat. § 827.071; Ga. Code Ann. § 16-12-100; Idaho Code Ann. § 18-

1507; 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/11-20.1; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3516; Ky. Rev. Stat.

Ann. § 531.300; La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:81.1; Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272 § 29C; Mich.

Comp. Laws Serv. § 750.145c; Minn. Stat. § 617.246; Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-33; Mo.

Rev. Stat. § 573.010; Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5-625; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.725; N.H. Rev.

Stat. Ann. § 649-A:2; N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-6A-3; N.Y. Penal § 263.00; N.D. Cent. Code

§ 12.1-27.2-01; Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1024.1; Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.665; S.D. Codified Laws

§ 22-24A-2 to -3; Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1003; Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 43.25; Utah

Code Ann. § 76-5a-2; Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-390; Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.011; W. Va.

Code § 61-8C-1; Wis. Stat. § 948.01; Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-4-303. Accordingly,

“simulated” in the context of sexually explicit conduct is neither a novel nor an

uncommon term.

These statutes recognize that a child may be harmed both physically and

psychologically in the production of visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit

7

conduct, even if no sexually explicit conduct actually takes place. Furthermore,

producers of visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct often substitute a visual

depiction of simulated sexually explicit conduct (so-called “soft-core” pornography) in

place of the actual sexually explicit conduct; then the soft-core pornography is often

distributed more widely than the unedited version of the same production. In such cases,

the protection of children from exploitation in the production of a visual depiction of

actual sexually explicit conduct necessitates that producers of visual depictions of

simulated sexually explicit conduct also be required to maintain records and label their

products.

Sections 2257 and 2257A thus operate in tandem to protect children from

exploitation in visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct. Part 75 implementing those

statutes has undergone significant public comment, and several courts have found it to be

2006 WL 1305089, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29506 (N.D. Ohio, May 10, 2006) (upholding

8

those whose activity “does not involve hiring, contracting for[,] managing, or otherwise

The Proposed Rules

Revisions to Section 2257

The Department issued a proposed rule to implement the revisions to section 2257

Sexually Explicit Conduct, 72 FR 38033 (July 12, 2007) (CRM 104; RIN 1105-AB18).

The proposed rule reflected the change to the definition of “actual sexually explicit

conduct” to include lascivious exhibition by adding to the definitional section of the

regulations at § 75.1(n). Although proposed part 75 applied to the “lascivious exhibition

of the genitals or pubic area of a person,” it did not define this term beyond the language

of section 2256(2)(A). Case law provides guidance as to the types of depictions that

federal courts have considered to be lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area,

and the Department will rely on such precedent in the context of section 2257

investigations and prosecutions.

a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity;

3) whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate

attire, considering the age of the child;

4) whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude;

5) whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to

engage in sexual activity;

6) whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual

response in the viewer.

The July 2007 proposed rule noted that, although these factors have been used to

determine whether visual depictions of children constituted lascivious exhibition for

purposes of criminal prosecution for violations of sections 2251, 2252, and 2252A of title

18, only the third factor is necessarily dependent on the age of the person depicted. The

other factors provide guidance as to the types of depictions that would constitute

lascivious exhibition for purposes of section 2257 and part 75, as well, even though those

sections apply to any performers regardless of age.

The July 2007 proposed rule noted that the applicability of part 75 was to be

prospective from the effective date of the Adam Walsh Act. It therefore contemplated

10

that the rule applied only to depictions whose original production date was on or after

July 27, 2006. That is, under the proposed rule, records would not be required to be

maintained either by a primary producer or by a secondary producer for a visual depiction

of lascivious exhibition, the original production date of which was prior to July 27, 2006.

In the case of a secondary producer, the proposed rule stated that even if the secondary

producer “produces” (as defined in the regulation) such a depiction on or after July 27,

2006, he need not maintain records if the original production date of the depiction is prior

to that date.

Second, the Adam Walsh Act revised the exclusions in the statute for the

operations of Internet companies. Specifically, the Act amended section 2257 by

excluding from the definition of “produces” the “provision of a telecommunications

service, or of an Internet access service or Internet information location tool . . . or the

transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any combination

thereof) of a communication, without selection or alteration of the content of the

communication.” These exclusions are based on the definitions in section 231 of the

Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 231.

Third, the Adam Walsh Act made several changes in the terminology of the

statute. In subsection 2257(e)(1), it added at the end the following: “In this paragraph,

the term ‘copy’ includes every page of a website on which matter described in subsection

(a) appears.” That change was reflected in the proposed rule at §§ 75.1(e)(3), 75.6(a),

and 75.8(d). The change materially affects the regulation’s labeling requirement as

applied to Web sites. Section 75.8(d) of the current regulations permits a producer of a

computer site of service or Web site to affix the label stating where the records required

11

under the regulations are located “on its homepage, any known major entry points, or

principal URL (including the principal URL of a subdomain), or in a separate window

that opens upon the viewer’s clicking a hypertext link that states, ‘18 U.S.C. 2257

Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement.’” Because of the change in the

statute, the proposed rule eliminated that portion of the current regulations. The proposed

rule required, per the statute, that the statement describing the location of the records

required by this part be affixed to every page of a Web site (controlled by the producer)

on which visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct appear.

Finally, the Adam Walsh Act confirmed that the statute applies to secondary

producers as currently (and previously) defined in the regulations. Specifically, the Act

defines any of the following activities as “produces” for purposes of section 2257:

(i) actually filming, videotaping, photographing, creating a picture, digital

image, or digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human

being;

(ii) digitizing an image[] of a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct;

or, assembling, manufacturing, publishing, duplicating, reproducing, or

reissuing a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, or

picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution, that contains

a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or

(iii) inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise

managing the sexually explicit content[] of a computer site or service that

contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct . . . .

18 U.S.C. 2257(h)(2)(A).

12

It excludes from the definition of “produces,” however, the following activities, in

pertinent part:

(i) photo or film processing, including digitization of previously existing

visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no other

commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing, and video

duplication.

(ii) distribution;

(iii) any activity, other than those activities identified in subparagraph (A),

that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise

arranging for the participation of the depicted performers. . . .

Id. 2257(h)(2)(B), as amended.

This language replaces the previous definition of “produces” in the statute, which

stated, in pertinent part, as follows:

[T]he term “produces” means to produce, manufacture, or publish any

book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer generated image,

digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and includes the

duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not

include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve

hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the

participation of the performers depicted . . . .

18 U.S.C. § 2257(h) (2000 ed. & Supp. V) (former version).

In enacting the revised language, Congress upheld the Department’s consistently

held position that the rule’s requirements for secondary producers have been in effect

13

since the rule’s original publication. As explained by the sponsor of the Act in the House

of Representatives:

Congress previously enacted the PROTECT Act of 2003 against

the background of Department of Justice regulations applying section

2257 to both primary and secondary producers. That fact, along with the

Act’s specific reference to the regulatory definition that existed at the

time, reflected Congress’ agreement with the Department of Justice’s view

that it already had the authority to regulate secondary procedures [sic]

under the applicable law.

A federal court in Colorado, however, recently enjoined the

Department from enforcing the statute against secondary producers,

relying on an earlier Tenth Circuit precedent holding that Congress had

not authorized the Department to regulate secondary producers. These

decisions conflicted with an earlier D.C. Circuit decision upholding

Congress’ authority to regulate secondary producers. Section 502 of the

bill is meant to eliminate any doubt that section 2257 applies both to

primary and secondary producers, and to reflect Congress’ agreement with

the regulatory approach adopted by the Department of Justice in enforcing

the statute.

152 Cong. Rec. H5705, H5725 (2006) (statement of Rep. Pence).

Reno, 33 F.3d 78 (D.C. Cir. 1994). In upholding the constitutionality of the secondaryproducer

requirements, the D.C. Circuit both recognized the importance of these

requirements and effectively rejected the argument that Congress lacked the authority to

regulate secondary producers.

In accordance with the current law, the proposed rule retained July 3, 1995, as the

effective date of the rule’s requirements for secondary producers. (The current

regulations, published in 2005, adopted July 3, 1995, as the effective date of enforcement

91-0394 (SS) (D.D.C. July 28, 1995). The one exception was that the proposed rule

would not have penalized secondary producers for failing to maintain required records in

connection with those acts of production that occurred prior to the effective date of the

Act. While the law would permit the Department to apply the statute and regulations to

actions that occurred prior to that date, the Department determined that the proposed rule

In addition to implementing the changes in the statute described above, the July

2007 proposed rule clarified several other issues. First, it clarified that primary producers

may redact non-essential information from copies of records provided to secondary

producers, including addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, and other

information not necessary to confirm the name and age of the performer. However, the

identification number of the picture identification card presented to confirm name and

age—such as drivers’ license number or passport number—may not be redacted, so that

its validity may be confirmed. Second, the proposed rule clarified that producers of

visual depictions performed live on the Internet need not maintain a copy of the full

15

running-time of every such depiction. Rather, they may maintain a copy that contains

running-time sufficient to identify each and every performer with the records needed to

confirm his or her age.

Third, the proposed rule clarified that, with regard to the government-issued photo

identification required for records, a foreign-government-issued picture identification is

acceptable if the performer providing it is a foreign citizen and the producer maintaining

the records produces the visual depiction of the performer in a foreign country, no matter

whether the producer is a U.S. or foreign citizen. That is, a U.S. producer who produces

a depiction of sexually explicit conduct while located in a foreign country may rely on a

foreign-government-issued picture identification card of a performer in that depiction

who is a foreign citizen. All other requirements of the regulations continue to apply

mutatis mutandis—i.e., the producer must examine and maintain a legible copy of the

foreign-government-issued picture identification card in his records. Furthermore, a

foreign-government-issued picture identification card is not sufficient to comply with the

regulations for U.S. citizens, even when abroad. That is, if a U.S. producer travels to a

foreign country to produce a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, all U.S. citizens

performing in the depiction must have a U.S.-government-issued picture identification

card, even though a foreign citizen performing in the same depiction may provide a

foreign-government-issued picture identification card. And, as is the case in the current

regulation, only a U.S.-government-issued picture identification card complies with the

regulations relating to productions in the United States, no matter whether the performer

is a U.S. or foreign citizen. The regulation also states that producers of visual depictions

made after July 3, 1995, the effective date of the regulations published in 1992, and

16

before June 23, 2005, the effective date of the current regulations published in 2005, may

rely on picture identification cards issued by private entities such as schools or private

employers that were valid forms of required identification under the provisions of part 75

in effect on the original production date. Finally, although it was not necessary to change

the text of the regulations for this purpose, the Department clarified at the time that it

issued the proposed rule that a producer need not keep a copy of a URL hosting a

depiction that the producer produced but over which he exercises no control.

Section 2257A

As noted above, on June 6, 2008, the Department published a proposed rule

of Records Relating to Depiction of Simulated Sexually Explicit Performances, 73 FR

32262 (June 6, 2008) (CRM. 105; RIN 1105-AB19). The June 2008 proposed rule

contained two key elements—a definition of “simulated sexually explicit conduct” and

the details of the certification regime.

As to the definition of “simulated sexually explicit conduct,” as noted above,

“sexually explicit conduct” is defined in section 2256(2)(A) with reference to certain

physical acts and with reference to both “actual” and “simulated” performance of those

acts. No definition of “actual” or “simulated” is contained in section 2256, or anywhere

else in chapter 110. When first published in 1990, amended in 2005, and proposed to be

amended in 2007, part 75 did not adopt a definition of “actual,” because the Department

believed that in the context of the acts described, the meaning of the term was

sufficiently precise for regulatory purposes. Public comments on the previous versions

17

of part 75 did not address the definition of “actual,” nor has the meaning of that term

arisen in litigation regarding the regulations.

With the extension of part 75 to cover simulated conduct, however, and with the

statutory provision for a certification regime for simulated conduct, the Department

believed that a definition of the term “simulated sexually explicit conduct” was

necessary. A definition would make clear to the public what types of conduct come

within the ambit of the regulation, as distinct from conduct not covered at all, and what

types of conduct will be eligible for the certification regime.

The Department started its analysis of the proper definition of the term for

regulatory purposes with the term’s plain meaning. The word “simulated” is typically

(11th ed. 2003).

The Department believes that an objective standard—that is, one defined in terms

of a reasonable person viewing the depiction—is appropriate to add to this basic

definition. The proposed rule’s definition of “simulated sexually explicit conduct” thus

read as follows: “[S]imulated sexually explicit conduct means conduct engaged in by

performers in a visual depiction that is intended to appear as if the performers are

engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, and does so appear to a reasonable viewer.”

The June 2008 proposed rule’s definition was based on the plain meaning of the

term and is supported by extrinsic sources of meaning. Chapter 110 was created by the

Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977, which defined “sexually

Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-225, § 2(a), 92 Stat. 7, 8 (1978).

18

That statute did not define “simulated,” however, and the legislative history of the act

Cong., 1st Sess. (1977); H.R. Report No. 696, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977). When

Congress amended chapter 110 in 1984, it considered defining “simulated” but ultimately

did not do so, thereby leaving the definition of that term to the discretion of the Attorney

General.

As noted above, most States have laws similar to the federal statute

criminalizing production, distribution, and possession of simulated sexually explicit

conduct involving a minor. A number of those States’ statutes, in contrast to section

2257A, define “simulated,” and therefore may inform the federal definition of that term

in part 75. State definitions of “simulated” generally fall into three categories:

1) Definitions based on giving the appearance of actual sexually explicit

conduct. For example: “An act is simulated when it gives the appearance of being

sexual conduct.” Cal. Penal Code § 311.4(d)(1); 14 V.I. Code § 1027(b). “‘Simulated

sexually explicit conduct’ means a feigned or pretended act of sexually explicit conduct

which duplicates, within the perception of an average person, the appearance of an

actual act of sexually explicit conduct.” Utah Code Ann. § 76-5a-2(9). “Sexual

intercourse is simulated when it depicts explicit sexual intercourse which gives the

appearance of the consummation of sexual intercourse, normal or perverted.” Mass.

Ann. Laws ch. 272, § 31; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 649-A:2(III).

2) Definitions based on depiction of genitals that gives the impression of actual

sexually explicit conduct, such as: “‘Simulated’ means any depicting of the genitals or

rectal areas that gives the appearance of sexual conduct or incipient sexual conduct.”

19

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3551(10); Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-31(f); Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5-

625(5)(c).

2257A does not cover such “virtual” child pornography, but rather “simulated” sexually

explicit conduct, the production of which, as noted above, can exploit a real child. The

which, for clarity’s sake, consistently refers to sexually explicit conduct engaged in by

an “actual human being.”

The second key element of the proposed rule was the crafting of the certification

regime. In enacting section 2257A, Congress determined it would be appropriate, in

certain circumstances, to exempt producers of visual depictions of lascivious exhibition

(for which records must be kept under section 2257, as amended by the Act) and

producers of visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct (for which records

must be kept under section 2257A) from statutory requirements otherwise applicable to

21

The safe harbor provision in the statute in essence permits certain producers of

visual depictions of lascivious exhibition or of simulated sexually explicit conduct to

certify that in the normal course of business they collect and maintain records to confirm

that performers in those depictions are not minors, while not necessarily collected and

maintained in the format required by part 75. Where a producer makes the required

certification, matter containing such visual depictions is not subject to the labeling

requirements of the statute.

In the June 2008 proposed rule, the Department crafted a certification regime

that would have implemented the safe harbor in such a way as to permit such producers,

in accordance with the statute, to be subject to lesser record-keeping burdens than those

in part 75 while still protecting children from sexual exploitation. The proposed rule

would have required producers to include the following information in certifications: (1)

the legal basis for the exemption and basic evidence in support; (2) a statement that they

collect and maintain the requisite individually identifiable information concerning their

employees; (3) a list of the producer’s materials depicting simulated sexually explicit

conduct or lascivious exhibition that show non-employee performers; (4) a list of the

producer’s materials depicting simulated sexually explicit conduct or lascivious

exhibition produced since the last certification; (5) with respect to foreign-produced

material, a statement that the foreign producer of that material either collects and

maintains the requisite records or itself has made a certification, or, with respect to

material depicting sexually explicit conduct only, a statement that the producer took

reasonable steps to confirm that the performers depicted in that material are not minors;

(6) if applicable, a list of the foreign-produced material depicting simulated sexually

22

explicit conduct that the producer took reasonable steps to confirm did not depict

minors; and (7) if applicable, a statement that the primary producer of material

secondarily produced by the certifying producer either collects and maintains the

requisite records or itself has made a certification. The proposed rule would also have

required that the certification be submitted every two years.

Changes from the Proposed Rules

This final rule makes a number of changes in the proposed rules in response to

commenters’ concerns. The Department believes that the changes, while still enabling

the Department to enforce the statutes, will considerably lessen the burdens on the

regulated industries.

Most significantly, as described in more detail below in response to specific

comments, the Department has done the following:

Comments on the Proposed Rules

The following section reviews comments to the proposed rules and how, if at all,

the Department has changed the final rule in response to them. Comments on both

proposed rules are included in this section, organized according to the subsections of the

rule.

Definitions

The proposed rule outlined several changes to definitions of terms that are

contained in 28 CFR § 75.1. The Department received a number of comments regarding

the proposed definitions.

Picture identification card

The proposed rule requires in § 75.1(b) that a producer of actual sexually explicit

conduct check a picture identification card issued by a United States or State government

entity for a performer who is an American citizen, whether the production occurs in the

United States or abroad. Under the proposed rule, a producer abroad may rely on foreign

24

government identification cards for foreign performers, but must maintain a copy of that

identification, and a producer may not rely on a foreign identification card for a foreign

citizen when production occurs in the United States, but must check a United States

identification card in that circumstance. The Department received three comments on

this proposal, all of which voiced opposition.

One comment noted that a producer cannot hire a foreign adult performer to work

in the United States who lacks American documents, but that if the producer took her

across the border, then she could work with foreign documents, a situation the

commenter suggested would not help children. The commenter also states that because

the proposed rule lacked a good faith exception, a producer operating outside the United

States would need to make sure that a performer using foreign documents was not in fact

an American citizen. Moreover, the commenter claims that the goal of avoiding errors in

immigration status that the proposed rule would therefore achieve did not help children.

The Department declines to adopt this comment. Protecting American citizens is

a top priority of the Department, and given the more stringent standards for issuing

government identification documents in recent years, the Department believes that

children will be best protected by a requirement that American identification documents

be provided before an American is hired to engage in sexually explicit conduct. It further

believes that conduct within American borders should necessitate that the producer check

for American issued identification documents even if the performer is a foreign citizen,

so that all producers in this country check the age and identification of all performers. It

is true that the rules will differ if the production occurs in foreign countries with foreign

25

performers. Given the Department’s resources and concerns regarding comity, the

Department continues to believe that the proposed rule best addresses this issue.

One comment expressed the belief that the Department should not always require

that a producer obtain a copy of a picture identification card before creating an actual

sexually explicit depiction. It hypothesizes the existence of a recording of a sexual act by

a Congressman in a public place. It argues that a news organization could not air this

recording under the proposed rule in the absence of the checking of a picture

identification card, even though the Congressman by constitutional operation must be at

least 25 years old.

The Department declines to adopt this comment. Regardless of the apparent age

or identity of an individual, the rule appropriately requires that identification be checked

to determine that the performer is of legal age. The individual pictured in this

hypothetical may only appear to be a Congressman, for instance. Moreover, an entity

regulated by the FCC, which the comment presupposes for airing such a depiction, may

well be able to utilize the exemption provisions of section 2257A.

The Department has also clarified that a picture identification card must include

the performer’s date of birth. Such a requirement was implicit in the proposed rule in

that picture identification documents issued by government agencies, such as a passport

or driver’s license, normally contain the individual’s date of birth. The final rule makes

this requirement explicit.

Producer

The Department received thousands of comments that appear to be part of an

orchestrated campaign that opposes the requirement in the proposed rule that adult social26

networking sites obtain and maintain personal information concerning their users,

including obtaining and maintaining users’ photo identification, as well the ability of the

Department to inspect such records and invade user privacy without safeguarding the

information once observed. They state that it is not feasible to have adult networking

sites for thousands of users under the rule, and they note that users of such sites already

certify that they are over 18.

The Department does not adopt these comments. First, most social networking

sites would appear not to be covered by the statute and the rule under the definition of

“produces” in section 2257(h)(2)(B)(v) and § 75.1(c)(4)(v), respectively. The statutory

definition excludes from “produces”: “the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting,

formatting, or translation (or any combination thereof) of a communication, without

§ 75.1(c)(4)(v) (excluding “[a] provider of an electronic communication service or

remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually

explicit content of the computer site or service”). Therefore, the Department does not

accept that such sites cannot operate under the proposed rule, or that such sites must

maintain information concerning their users, much less that the Department must be

able to inspect such data. However, one who posts sexually explicit activity on “adult”

networking sites may well be a primary or secondary producer. Users of social

networking sites may therefore be subject to the proposed rule, depending on their

conduct. That such users may certify without penalty or effective monitoring that they

are over 18 is irrelevant to compliance with the proposed rule, since they may not in fact

be above 18. Moreover, depictions such users put on the sites may feature not only

27

themselves but other people who have not even made the unverifiable certification

required by a social networking site.

One comment states that the Department must clarify the distinction between

secondary producers and distributors. The comment notes that the Act amended the

statutory definition of “produces” to broaden the distribution exclusion from “mere

that this means “distribution” is not meant to be narrowly construed, and that the

Department should thus state that “unless an entity that disseminates a depiction of

sexually explicit conduct is responsible for creating or materially altering its content, or

for its physical construction, the entity is engaged in ‘distribution’ and is exempt from

the statute and rules.” The comment goes on to note that “non-material alteration”

should include removing or pixilating depictions of sexually explicit conduct.

The Department adopts this comment in part. The Department cannot adopt the

2257(h)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii) include several activities under the definition of “produces,”

such as digitizing an image, inserting an image on a computer site or service, or

managing the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service, that would fall

under the comment’s proposed definition of “distribution.” The Department, however,

states in the final rule that, unless activities are described in section 2257(h)(2)(A), an

entity whose activities are limited to the dissemination of a depiction of sexually explicit

conduct without having created it or altered its content is excluded from the definition of

“producer.”

28

The Department cannot adopt the suggestion as to “non-material alteration” of

depictions for two reasons: first, pixilating an image would appear to constitute

“creating a digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being,” and

thus would fall under the definition of “produces” in section 2257(h)(2)(A)(i); second,

to the extent images are posted on Web sites, alteration (and subsequent posting on a

Web site) of an image would appear to constitute “inserting . . . [such image] on a

computer site . . . or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content” of such a site.

While the comment correctly states that the proposed exclusion is analogous to the

exclusion for transmission, which permits a transmitter to delete material that it

considers “obscene . . . or otherwise objectionable” without being considered to have

(citing 47 U.S.C. 230(c)), Congress did not provide similar language modifying the

exclusion for distribution of the image, and thus the Department is limited by the

statutory text.

In addition, as described in more detail below, in certain circumstances a

F.3d 733 (3d Cir. 1994). A categorical exemption for persons who pixilated or

otherwise obscured depictions would risk creating a loophole for the production of

material that is in fact covered by the definition of sexually explicit conduct.

Several commenters ask the Department to exclude news and documentary

programming from the definition of “producer.” The comments claim that producers of

that programming use footage provided by others under the fair use doctrine. The

comments posit that if a producer includes news and documentary producers, then such

29

producers either will lose the ability to obtain footage depicting any adult sexual conduct,

or will be forced to make payments to the original producer notwithstanding the fair use

doctrine.

The Department declines to adopt this comment. The First Amendment does not

permit even a bona fide reporter to trade in child pornography in order to create a work

mention the possibility that someone might purport to be a news or documentary

producer to evade the statute. Accordingly, it is consistent with the law for the final rule

to cover journalistic and similar works.

One comment inquires whether a secondary producer is required by the proposed

rule’s change to § 75.2(a)(1) to “examin[e] . . . a picture identification card prior to

production of the depiction,” or whether this obligation is limited to the primary

producer. The commenter asks that the Department allow an entity that obtains a

domestic or foreign-made film or program for American distribution but has no role in

the production of that film or program to be considered a “distributor” rather than a

“secondary producer” of such material, and therefore to be exempt from the

requirements. The comment would allow secondary producers to disseminate a work in

the United States even when a primary producer failed to obtain the required records

prior to the date of original production.

The Department declines to adopt this comment. The comment would effectively

turn all secondary producers into distributors, exempting them from section 2257’s

requirements, contrary to the Act’s making section 2257 applicable to that activity. A

significant goal of the legislation was to eliminate commercial markets for non30

commercially produced child pornography. Although the rule does not require secondary

producers to check identification themselves, secondary producers should be aware that

they incur a significant risk if they do not avail themselves of the identification

documents that primary producers have created. Secondary producers who do not check

records run the risk that they are distributing child pornography if the performers

depicted in fact were not of legal age. Furthermore, to the extent that such foreignproduced

material includes only lascivious exhibition, a U.S. secondary producer could

avail itself of the provisions of the certification.

One comment notes the proposed rule’s elimination of “mere” from the term

“mere distribution” that is contained in the current regulation and requests that the

Department add “or gratuitous transfer” after the word “distribution” in the definition of

“producer” in § 75.1(c)(4)(ii). The comment suggests that adding “or gratuitous transfer”

would avoid a potential problem in the meaning of the word “distribution” when read in

connection with the term’s restriction to commercial contexts in § 75.1(d) of the current

regulations. The comment believes that the latter provision correctly suggests that the

regulations’ record-keeping requirements are restricted to commercial production

operations. And it requests that the Department to elaborate whether or which transfers

should require disclosure statements.

The Department declines to adopt this comment. The definitions in the proposed

rule are (with minor grammatical changes to conform to the structure of the regulation)

exactly those in the statute, and the Department sees no need for further clarification,

particularly with respect to a particular term that itself would have to be defined.

31

One comment asks the Department to remove the term “assembles” from the

definition of “producer” in § 75.1(c)(2). The Department declines to adopt this comment.

As noted above, the definitions in the regulations are those contained in the statute, and

the statutory definition of “produces” includes “assembling. . . a book, magazine,

periodical, film, videotape, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for

commercial distribution, that contains a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct.” 18

U.S.C. 2257(h)(2)(A)(ii).

One comment notes that many depictions will have more than one primary

producer, as a depiction can be photographed, then digitized, or be generated by

computer from a depiction of an actual person. Various entities could be involved in

creating a particular depiction. Each entity or person who performed even one of these

tasks would be a primary producer. Moreover, since only secondary producers can rely

on copies of documents, the comment requests that the Department provide that only one

primary producer should be designated and required to maintain records.

Another comment states that the rules are unclear concerning how many or which

producers must be named if there is more than one primary or secondary producer. It

notes that parents and subsidiaries may not have the same address. The Department

adopts this comment in part by stating that the final rule provides that where a primary

producer is a corporate entity, only one primary producer associated with that entity will

exist. For purposes of efficiency in inspection, where the corporate parent entity is the

primary producer, that is the entity that should be named in the disclosure statement as

the keeper of the records.

32

The Department adopts these comments in part. In response to a similar

comment, the final rule published in 2005 stated, “The Department does not believe that

logic, practicability of record-keeping or inspections, or the statue dictates that there be

one and only one primary producer for any individual sexually explicit depiction. Any of

the persons defined as primary producer has easy access to the performers and their

identification documents and should therefore each have responsibility individually and

separately of maintaining the records of those documents.” However, upon

reconsideration, the Department has decided to clarify that if multiple individuals are all

employed by the same entity, the entity constitutes the “primary producer” for purposes

of record-keeping, not the individuals.

Similarly, one comment notes that a single reproduction can create numerous

secondary producers. Under § 75.1(c)(2), a preexisting photograph can be digitized by

one person, inserted on a computer site by another, which is managed by a third, and if

each of these is employed by a corporation, then there are now seven secondary

producers arising out of a single reproduction, each of whom must now seek and obtain

from the primary producer information concerning every depicted performer. The

commenter considers this scenario to be unlikely, threatening availability of the

depiction.

As with the similar comment regarding multiple primary producers, the

Department adopts this comment in part. The Department has clarified that if multiple

individuals are all employed by the same entity, the entity constitutes the “secondary

producer” for purposes of record-keeping, not the individuals. However, there may be

multiple secondary producers who are separate entities engaged in separate commercial

33

enterprises—e.g., one company purchases a depiction from the primary producers and

publishes it on a Web site and another purchases and publishes the same depiction in a

magazine several years later—and who must each maintain the records associated with

the depiction.

One comment questions whether § 75.1(c)(4)(v), which allows a Web site such

as Youtube to post depictions without having to keep records, allows someone to display

a Youtube video on their own Web site and still fall within the exemption because

Youtube would not have the records itself and the person downloading from Youtube

would not have access to the records. As described in the comment, it would appear that

the individual who downloads a depiction of actual sexually explicit material from a

another site onto a site that he or she controls is a producer because he or she has

“reproduc[ed]” or “insert[ed] on a computer site or service a digital image of, or

otherwise manage[ed] the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that

contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit

conduct” within the meaning of the definition of “secondary producer” in § 75.1(c)(2).

Whether or not the source for the person is a site such as Youtube, which may not be

required to maintain records as a secondary producer, since the original individual

producer who posts a depiction on that site is required to affix a disclosure notice to each

page of the sexually explicit depiction, a secondary producer who downloads that

depiction onto another site should be able to obtain the requisite information for

compliance with its own record-keeping and disclosure requirements.

Date of original production

34

The proposed rule defined “date of original production” to mean the date that the

primary producer actually created the image of actual sexually explicit conduct. One

comment requests that the Department define this term in this fashion for primary

producers, but, in the case of secondary producers, that the date of original production

should also be permitted, at the discretion of the secondary producer, to be the date of the

secondary producer’s relevant conduct.

The Department adopts this comment. Obtaining the date of the original

production from the primary producer should not pose a problem for a secondary

producer, since the secondary producer obtains the records of the production from the

producer. As explained more fully below, the Department in the final rule has eliminated

the requirement that the statement of location of records required by § 75.6 contain a date

of original production (or any other date, as in the regulation currently in force). Hence,

a secondary producer is not responsible for including that information in a statement that

it affixes to material it secondarily produces. However, primary producers, as explained

below, will henceforth be required to create and maintain a record of the date of original

production, such record being transferred to the secondary producer along with all other

records required by part 75.

To the extent that this is a new requirement for both primary and secondary

producers that did not exist previous to the proposed rule, the Department clarifies that it

applies only prospectively from the date of the publication of this final rule.

Also, in response to a comment, the Department has clarified that if a depiction

is made over the course of multiple dates, the date of original production consists of the

earliest of those dates. There is no requirement in the rule that any depicted performer

35

be 18 on the date of original production so long as that performer is 18 as of the date

that a depiction of that individual is created. Producers who keep records demonstrating

that performers are 18 as of the date of original production conform to the requirements

of the rule. The final rule has been changed to reflect that in the case of a performer

who was under 18 at the time that production began, but became of legal age before he

or she was depicted, an alternative date of original production with respect to that

performer is the first date that that performer was actually filmed for the production at

issue.

with respect to matter that is a secondarily produced compilation of one or more

separate, primarily produced depictions. The final rule provides that with respect to

such a compilation, the date of original production of the matter is the earliest date after

July 3, 1995, on which any individual depiction therein was produced. In the event a

performer in any of the individual depictions was under 18 on that date, the alternative

date of original production with respect to that performer is the first date that any scene

depicting that performer was actually recorded.

Employed by

One comment states that the Department erred in defining “employed” in the

2257A proposed rule because the Department cannot make the term broader than it is

normally understood by simply defining it broadly. The comment goes on to state that

“[w]e do not think that it is a rare case at all that a producer creates images covered by

sections 2257 or 2257A which depict non-employees—as properly understood—in

36

sexual roles. But defining ‘employe[e]’ more broadly than usual defeats the obvious

sense of the safe harbor provision which Congress has promulgated.”

The Department declines to adopt this comment. The definition of “employed”

used in the proposed rule is consistent with the commonly understood definition, which

does not necessarily require that an employee be paid by an employer. One common

definition of “employ” is “to use or engage the services of,” while another is “to provide

(11th ed. 2003). Although the commenter seeks to characterize the Department’s

definition of the term as somehow broader than normal, the Department’s definition is

wholly consistent with the dictionary definition of the term in that it covers not only a

producer providing a person with a job that pays wages but also a producer using or

engaging the services of a person. The Department thus does not believe that the

proposed rule’s definition of “employed” is inconsistent with the text of the statute.

Sexually explicit conduct

transferable to an adult, notwithstanding the Department’s statements concerning the

proposed rule. These comments asserted that inquiring whether setting, pose, and visual

depictions are appropriate, natural, or suggestive for a child are nonsensical for adults

because such conduct is not improper for adults. One comment maintained that the

Dost factors represent in this context an inappropriate burden shift from presumed

constitutional expression to a presumption of child pornography, and another suggested

that an image not otherwise lascivious could be inappropriately found to be lascivious

based on its proximity to adult lascivious images.

37

The Department does not adopt these comments. The Department does not

is to determine whether a particular depiction is of actual sexually explicit conduct for

purposes of determining whether compliance with various legal requirements is

necessary. The age of the person depicted is irrelevant to whether the image depicts

which the proposed rule identified as not being relevant to the depiction’s status as actual

sexually explicit conduct. If the acts depicted would fall within any of the remaining

Dost factors if they were performed by a minor, one who produces actual sexually

explicit conduct must take the requisite steps necessary to ensure that the individual

performing these acts is of legal age. The proposed rule creates no presumption of or

against the existence of child pornography. The rule’s applicability depends on the image

any presumption. Nor is the lasciviousness determination made with regard to anything

but the depiction that is produced.

One comment, relying on a Court of Appeals decision that accepted the relevance

their applicability here would mean that millions of images on Myspace or Youtube or

Facebook may require section 2257 compliance even though they do not involve nudity

or sexual activity. The comment states that the rule must define exhibition of the genitals

to consist only of nude exhibition. Otherwise, it maintains, every photo of male water

polo players or other competitive swimmers would be potentially subject to section 2257

38

record keeping, as would other depictions of persons in tight clothing suggestive of

genitalia.

The Department does not adopt this comment. The comment takes an overly

broad reading of the law of child pornography and applies that reading to produce a

comment. It is not the case that pictures of boys’ water polo teams constitute child

genitals were clothed in that case, they were covered by thin, opaque clothing with an

obvious purpose to draw attention to them, were displayed by models who spread or

extended their legs to make the pubic and genital region entirely visible to the viewer,

and were displayed by models who danced or gyrated in a way indicative of adult sexual

relations. 32 F.3d at 746-47. None of these attributes remotely applies to standard swim

team photographs or underwear or other mainstream advertising. Therefore, very few

images posted on Myspace or Youtube of clothed individuals would require section 2257

compliance, and the description in this rule of the kinds of images that do so provides

clear guidance to the narrow situations in which clothed images would trigger section

2257 compliance.

“lascivious exhibition of the genitals” to mean images that display an individual’s naked

genital area.

The Department declines to adopt this comment. As discussion of the depictions

child pornography. When such images are created, if the performers are under 18, what

39

is being produced is child pornography. The obligations of the proposed rule must apply

to producers who create depictions that could constitute lascivious exhibition, so as to

reduce the possibility of child exploitation. One comment asks whether the depiction of

scantily clad women in a strip club or bedroom would be subject to the regulations and

criminal penalties. The comment maintains that the need to pose such a question means

that producers would not know what materials trigger the record-keeping requirements,

which would cause a chilling effect. The comment claims that creators of widely shown

films and television programs who make a mistake in this respect risk prosecution.

The Department does not adopt this comment. The proposed rule rejected a

categorical approach that would state whether every possible depiction was one that fell

content. A depiction of scantily clad women in a strip club or bedroom can appear in

limitless permutations, and the Department cannot state that all or none would constitute

factors provide the context that producers and the Department will rely on to determine

whether an image depicts actual sexually explicit conduct so as to minimize any chilling

effect. Film and television producers are particularly unlikely to risk prosecution for

displaying scantily clad performers because of the certification option.

may not know that he must obtain identification before production. If the producer does

not do so, the comment asks what options are then available to the secondary producer

40

producers may not be able to acquire and disseminate a wide range of movies and

television programs, especially foreign productions.

The Department does not adopt this comment. Prosecutions for production of

Cir. 1989). That they have done so contradicts the argument that the test amounts to

unconstitutional vagueness in defining “lascivious exhibition.” A secondary producer

who is concerned that a primary producer may have violated the requirements of the

statute and the regulation has the options of requesting that the primary producer revisit

the issue and examine picture identification cards and compile age records. Furthermore,

secondary producers of qualifying material may be able to avail themselves of the

certification in section 2257A and its implementing regulation.

One comment disputed the Act’s extension of section 2257 to cover lascivious

exhibition as closing a previous loophole in that statute. The comment asserts that the

prior version reflected a desire to limit the law to depictions that involve actual sexually

explicit activity and avoid overbreadth through inapplicability of its provisions to fully

clothed adults.

The Department does not adopt this comment. The characterization of the Act is

not an operative part of the regulation that requires a response.

One comment requests that the Department distinguish between actual and

simulated masturbation in defining actual sexually explicit conduct. The Department

declines to adopt this comment. To the extent that this is merely a subset of a larger

41

question as to the distinction between “actual” and “simulated” conduct, the meaning of

“actual” conduct with respect to all the conduct covered by the statute and the regulation

is clear on its face. To the extent that “simulated” was not clear on its face, this final rule

regulation contains a definition.

One comment requests that the Department define “sadistic or masochistic abuse”

because some people believe that safe and consensual bondage is not abuse, and requests

that the Department distinguish between actual and simulated sadistic or masochistic

abuse. The Department declines to adopt this comment. That term is not a subject of this

rulemaking. Moreover, actual sexually explicit conduct depends on the content of what

is being displayed, not on whether the content is subjectively considered to be abusive. If

belief as to abuse were to control, a producer who determined that nothing was abusive

would be able to avoid compliance with the regulations in their entirety, creating massive

opportunity for child exploitation.

One comment contends that the definition of “sexual” varies among communities

and that the final rule should contain more guidance as to the meaning of the term. It

asks whether nude photos of a single person’s erect penis is sexual, or whether a hand

over the pubic area is sexual.

The Department declines to adopt this comment. It believes that the definition of

actual sexually explicit conduct contained in the final rule is clear. The Department does

not believe that a producer would have any difficulty in determining whether hypothetical

depictions of the kind posed by the commenter would constitute actual sexually explicit

conduct within the meaning of the rule.

Simulated sexually explicit conduct

42

In the proposed rule to implement section 2257A, the Department started its

analysis of the proper definition of the term for regulatory purposes with the term’s

plain meaning. The term “simulated” is generally defined as “made to look genuine.”

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1162 (11th ed. 2003). The Department

believed that an objective standard—that is, one defined in terms of a reasonable person

viewing the depiction—is appropriate to add to this basic definition. The proposed

rule’s definition of “simulated sexually explicit conduct” thus read as follows:

“[S]imulated sexually explicit conduct means conduct engaged in by performers in a

visual depiction that is intended to appear as if the performers are engaged in actual

sexually explicit conduct, and does so appear to a reasonable viewer.”

Three comments state that the final rule should incorporate the definition of

definition reads, in pertinent part:

“simulated” sexual intercourse is not sexual intercourse that is merely

suggested, but rather sexual intercourse that is explicitly portrayed, even

though (through camera tricks or otherwise) it may not actually have

occurred. The portrayal must cause a reasonable viewer to believe that the

actors actually engaged in that conduct on camera.

“simulated sexually explicit conduct,” the Department understands the comments to

43

refer to “simulated sexually explicit conduct,” not “simulated sexual intercourse.”

dissimilar to that outlined in the proposed rule, and adopts both comments. The final

rule thus incorporates a revised definition of “simulated sexually explicit conduct.”

One comment recommends that the proposed rule’s definition of “sexually

explicit conduct” should refer to 18 U.S.C. 2256(2)(B), not 18 U.S.C. 2256(2)(A). The

comment states that the narrower definition at section 2256(2)(B), which would require

depictions to be graphic or lascivious, would be more consistent with the state laws the

Department rejected in determining how to define “simulated sexually explicit

conduct.”

The Department declines to adopt this comment. The definition at section

2256(2)(B) is limited, by its own terms, to images described in section 2256(8)(B)—

images that are “a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is,

or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” In

All performers, including minor performers

One comment states that the proposed rule is unclear as to whether the recordkeeping

requirements apply to all performers in a depiction, or to primary performers,

and recommends that the Department should clarify that these requirements apply only

to primary performers and not to any background performers in the depiction.

44

The Department declines to adopt this comment. The commenter did not

attempt to define “primary” or “background” in this context, and the Department has

difficulty in doing so. As a practical matter, in many cases it would be difficult to

determine whether a performer in a visual depiction of lascivious exhibition or

simulated sexually explicit conduct is a “primary” or a “background” performer. For

example, in a lascivious exhibition depiction of a person on a bed, a person depicted in

that same image as standing nearby, wearing lingerie, and watching the person on the

bed could well be a “primary” performer—however that term were to be defined—

depending on the level of interaction between that person and the person depicted on the

bed. On the other hand, conceivably a fully clothed person could be considered a

“background” performer even if located on the same bed, again depending on the level

of interaction between the performers. Similar confusion would apply in the context of

depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct. In order to avoid such confusion, the

Department believes that it is appropriate to require, as stated in the proposed rule, that

all performers in depictions of lascivious exhibition or simulated sexually explicit

conduct be covered.

Date of Original Production

One comment characterizes the proposed rule as faulty because it does not

specifically require that a record be made of the date of original production, although the

proposed rule will require that this date be stated in the disclosure statement.

The Department adopts the comment’s view that it was an oversight that the

proposed rule did not require that a record otherwise be made of the date of production.

45

As noted above, the Department, after careful consideration, has amended the recordkeeping

requirement to include that a primary producer record the date of original

production at the time it examines the picture identification card of the first performer in

the depiction. Again, to the extent that this is a new requirement for primary producers,

the Department clarifies that it applies only prospectively from the date of the publication

of this final rule.

Several comments note that in § 75.2(a)(1) of the proposed rule, producers are

required to create and maintain records of the name and date of birth of each performer

obtained by the producer’s examination of a picture identification card prior to the date of

production of the depiction. They point out that the Act made no change to section

2257(b), which is the source of this requirement. The comments ask the Department to

state that only the “examination” of the picture identification card that must take place

prior to the production of sexually explicit images, and not necessarily the creation of a

record based on the examination of the picture identification that must occur before

production.

The Department declines to adopt these comments. As noted above, the

Department believes that in order to fully implement the purpose of the statute, the record

must be made at the time of examination of the document and has clarified that in this

final rule. Furthermore, the Department requires in the final rule that a primary producer

make a record of the date of original production. This record will then flow to secondary

producers and enable them to affix the date to the disclosure statement. However, in

order to simplify the requirement, the Department has clarified that if a depiction is made

46

over the course of multiple dates, the date of original production consists of the single

and earliest of those dates.

One comment states that the original production date is not often available,

particularly because it was never a requirement of section 2257. The comment cautions

that were the final rule to require keeping this information, hosts of most Web sites will

be immediately out of compliance. Another comment notes that the Department stated in

its proposed rule that secondary producers need comply only with the rules for material

that was produced after the Act’s 2006 effective date, and § 75.2(c) states that producers

of visual depictions made after 1995 and before 2005 may rely on identification that was

valid under the record-keeping and labeling regulations that were in force on the date of

original production.

As noted above, the Department adopts the comment seeking prospective

application of the record-keeping requirements documenting that identification was

checked prior to the occurrence of production. The comment noting that producers may

rely on identification rules and record-keeping requirements that applied on the date of

original production of the depiction is correct, and demonstrates that Web site owners

will not have to conform their existing records to the new requirements, contrary to the

statement contained in the comment noted above.

Two comments request that the record-keeping requirements with respect to

viewing identification documents prior to production apply only to primary producers.

According to the comments, only primary producers have an opportunity to examine

picture identification cards prior to the production. At most, the comments ask,

secondary producers should be required to examine what they receive from the primary

47

producer that relates to depictions from the primary producer. One of the comments

believes that without such an alternative, there will be an effective prohibition on

disseminating numerous widely disseminated productions. And even then, it claims,

foreign films would not have such documentation because even if a secondary producer

could obtain and inspect the required records retroactively, it may be unable to do so

because of difficulties in locating performers or because of data protection laws.

The Department adopts these comments in part. It rejects some of the concerns as

reflecting a misunderstanding of the requirements of the final rule. A secondary producer

is not required under the rule to check identification documents. That is a responsibility

only of the primary producer. A secondary producer may risk child pornography

offenses, however, if he does not take steps to assure himself that the performer is

actually of legal age. Nonetheless, the secondary producer is required by the final rule

only to retain records. Those records enable the Department to identify who the primary

producer was for any depiction and to verify that the depicted performers were of legal

age. The Department believes that to avoid a commercial market in child pornography

through the witting or unwitting actions of secondary producers, secondary producers

must keep records that each depiction occurred only after the primary producer checked

valid identification documents. Were secondary producers to be exempted from this

requirement, a real risk of commercial marketing of illegal product would develop. The

comments are mistaken in postulating that the final rule imposes a duty on a secondary

producer to locate foreign performers after the fact. What the secondary producer must

do, even for foreign productions, is to ensure that it has copies of the records that show

48

that the primary producer checked the legal age of performers prior to the date of original

production.

Requirement of Hard Copies

The proposed rule amends § 75.2(a) concerning requirements for maintenance of

records. The proposed rule requires that the copy of the identification documents be

retained in hard copy form. The Department received four comments regarding the

proposed rule’s requirements for maintaining copies of identification card records in hard

copy form.

Two comments state that nothing in the Act or proposed rule requires that records

be kept in hard copy format. It contends that there is no justification with contemporary

technology for requiring hard copies. The comment also notes that the proposed rule

represents a departure from § 75.2(f), which permits records to be kept in digital form if

they include scanned copies of identification documents. Another comment reiterates

that point, and adds that electronic copies would permit the passage of records along the

chain of distribution as the rules contemplate. Otherwise, records could be divided when

shared, which could create losses or errors and put the producer in danger of violating

rules by having incomplete or improperly maintained records. This comment asks that

the Department return § 75.(2)(a)(1) to its current form by deleting the word “hard,” or

consider the new requirement for a hard copy of the picture identification document to be

satisfied by scanning the identification card or a hard copy of it, and/or by electronic

versions that can be printed out to create hard copies at the time of inspection.

The Department adopts these comments. Nothing in section 2257 requires that

records be kept in hard copy format, and, indeed, existing § 75.2(f) permits copies of

49

identification documents to be scanned and stored electronically if they can be

authenticated by a custodian. The proposed rule did not seek to amend § 75.2(f). The

proposed rule’s changes to § 75.2(a) that mandate the retention of all copies of

identification documents and pictures in hard copy format would create a conflict with

the terms of § 75.2(f). The final rule, therefore, amends proposed § 75.2(a)(1) to add “or

digitally scanned or other electronic copy of a hard copy.” Note, however, that in the

event a regulated entity or individual decides to retain records in electronic format,

nothing in the Act or the regulations provides that technical difficulties would excuse

failure to make the records available at reasonable times for inspection.

One comment notes that in the proposed rule the Department stated that a

producer need not keep a copy of a URL hosting a depiction that the producer produced

“but over which he exercises no control.” The commenter asks that the Department

modify this statement to read “but over which he exercises no corporate control” or other

such language that clarifies that the producer is not responsible for Web sites not owned

by the producer.

The Department declines to adopt this comment. Were the Department to state

that the producer is not responsible for Web sites the producer does not own, the final

rule would not apply to a producer who influenced or directed what happened to the

depiction, even if he did not own the Web site. If a producer exercises control over a

depiction, whether as an individual or as a corporate entity, and regardless of whether the

producer owns the Web site on which the depiction is displayed, then the producer must

retain the copy of the URL hosting a depiction that the producer produced. The only

exception to this requirement, as noted above, is where an individual who would be a

50

primary producer under the final rule’s definition is an employee of a corporate primary

producer. Under such circumstances, that individual will not be considered a primary

producer.

Redaction

One comment states that the viewer of the identification document need not know

the Social Security number or exact birth date of a performer.

The Department does not adopt this comment. The proposed rule quite clearly

allows a producer to redact the performer’s Social Security number. An exact birth date

sometimes may be redacted so long as the year is not obscured. However, if a performer

is 18 on the date of original production, the month or even the day of the month must not

be redacted if a question would exist whether he was of legal age at the time of the

original production.

Compliance date

In accordance with current law, the final rule retains July 3, 1995, as the

effective date of the rule’s requirements for secondary producers related to depictions of

actual sexually explicit conduct. (The current regulations, published in 2005, adopted

July 3, 1995, as the effective date of enforcement of section 2257 based on the court’s

1995).)

In response to a comment stating that the proposed rule created potential confusion

by omitting language from the 2007 proposed rule implementing the Adam Walsh Act’s

changes to section 2257, the Department clarifies, as stated in the preamble to the 2007

51

not penalize secondary producers for failing to maintain required records in connection

with those acts of production that occurred prior to the effective date of the Adam

Walsh Act. The proposed rule also stated that producers of visual depictions of actual

sexually explicit conduct made after July 3, 1995, the effective date of the regulations

published in 1992, and before June 23, 2005, the effective date of the current regulations

published in 2005, may rely on picture identification cards issued by private entities

such as schools or private employers that were valid forms of required identification

documentation under the provisions of part 75 in effect on the original production date.

Finally, the proposed rule stated that the effective date concerning depictions of

simulated sexually explicit conduct will be 90 days after it is published in the Federal

Register as a final rule.

Two comments address the disparity between the statutory effective date of

section 2257’s coverage of depictions of lascivious exhibition (July 27, 2006) and the

statutory effective date of section 2257A (90 days after publication of this final rule

implementing section 2257A), which includes the safe harbor provision exempting

producers who certify from section 2257’s provisions concerning depictions of

lascivious exhibition. One comment recommends that the Department make the safe

harbor provision retroactive to the July 27, 2006, effective date of section 2257

concerning depictions of lascivious exhibition. The other comment states that the

Department should make the effective date of part 75 with respect to depictions of

lascivious exhibition the same date as the statutory effective date of section 2257A.

This comment further states that setting the same effective date for rules regulating

depictions of lascivious exhibition and simulated sexually explicit conduct would

52

“avoid[] potentially fatal vagueness problems under the First Amendment.” Under

either suggestion, the effective date of the safe harbor provision and the regulatory

requirements concerning depictions of lascivious exhibition would be the same.

The Department adopts these comments in part. The final rule provides that the

regulatory requirements applicable to depictions of lascivious exhibition apply starting 90

days after the publication of this final rule.

Two comments argue that the proposed rule creates First Amendment vagueness

and ex post facto problems because individuals did not create records as of the effective

date of the proposed rule which they did not think would be necessary. The Department

does not accept the comment that the proposed rule created any First Amendment

insofar as the proposed rule would operate retroactively and, as stated above, modifies

the compliance date accordingly.

Two comments state that to avoid retroactivity, the final rule should not apply to

material that is actually sexually explicit only because it displays lascivious exhibition of

the genitals and that was acquired by a secondary producer prior to the compliance date

of the regulation. One of these comments requests the Department, if it adopts a different

standard, to define “acts of production,” so that a secondary producer would know based

on an acquisition date or other standard what content required record-keeping and what

did not.

The Department declines to adopt this comment. Although the Department is

sympathetic to the concerns expressed in the comment, and wishes to avoid retroactivity,

it does not agree that the date that a secondary producer obtained the image displaying

53

lascivious exhibition of the genitals should determine whether the regulation applies.

There is no requirement in the existing or proposed rules that secondary producers

document the date they obtained particular depictions. Were the Department to adopt the

comment, unscrupulous secondary producers could claim that they acquired any

depiction created before the final rule’s compliance date prior to that date. Secondary

producers who wished to demonstrate in good faith that their collections contained

depictions that were obtained only after the compliance date of the final rule would be

obliged to mark every such depiction currently in their possession to prove that they

possessed it as of that date. Moreover, the Department would have no way of proving

that the producer acquired the depiction prior to the compliance date of the final rule.

The Department seeks to ensure that prohibited depictions were not created on or after

the compliance date as herein modified. This concern derives from the statutory

language, which turns on the date of production. The date that the secondary producer

acquired the image is of no relevance. A secondary producer will be able to comply with

the final regulation on an exclusively prospective basis by determining that appropriate

procedures were followed for such depictions that were originally produced after the

compliance date of the final rule.

Another comment requests that, even if the Department were to adopt a

prospective compliance date, the final rule not apply to images (as opposed to depictions)

created before the compliance date, i.e., a digitization of a previously existing depiction.

The comment points out that a digital image made after the compliance date could be

based on an initial depiction that could be older. The producer of the digital image could

not use that earlier depiction, even if it were eighty years old, because it could not

54

reconstruct the records. Therefore, the comment concludes that the final rule should be

limited to images first created before the compliance date. The comment also states that

the Department must accept that it cannot address preexisting content.

The Department declines to adopt this comment. The Department does agree that

because the final rule will apply prospectively, it cannot address preexisting depictions

that constitute actual sexually explicit material only because they display lascivious

exhibition of the genitals. However, the Department can address digitized or other

modified versions of preexisting content where the modifications occur after the final

rule’s compliance date. In light of the changed compliance date of the rule, any

preexisting depiction of lascivious exhibition of the genitals that is not now digitized can

be digitized before the rule takes effect. That will avoid the problem stated by the

comment. Any secondary producer after that date who digitizes a depiction without

obtaining records showing that the depiction was in accordance with the final rule will

either need to obtain another digitized version of the depiction that does so or track down

the primary producer of either the original or another digitized version of the depiction to

create the records.

One comment notes that the statutory language on this point is broader than the

language of the proposed rule. The statute says that section 2257 does not apply to “any

depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct” involving lascivious exhibition of the

genitals that was produced “in whole or in part” prior to the compliance date. The

comment states that the final rule should track that language.

The Department declines to adopt this comment. The comment implies that under

the statutory language, any depiction of lascivious exhibition of the genitals that was

55

produced after the compliance date of the final rule is not covered by section 2257 if any

other part of the image was produced before the compliance date. The Department does

not so read the statute. There are five situations in which the statutory language

discussed could apply, and the Department believes that it is important to set forth the

applicability of the statutory language to each.

First, prior to the compliance date of the final rule, a depiction could have been

created of lascivious exhibition of the genitals and no other form of actual sexually

explicit conduct as that term is defined after the compliance date of the final rule. Prior

to the final rule, this was not a depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct. If the

depiction were modified or another depiction connected to it that did not contain

lascivious exhibition or another form of actual sexually explicit conduct, then the final

rule would not apply because the lascivious exhibition of the genitals was produced

before the compliance date of the final rule.

Second, a depiction produced before the compliance date could have contained

neither actual sexually explicit conduct as that term was then defined nor lascivious

exhibition of the genitals. If a producer then altered or added to the depiction, or to a

connected depiction, a depiction of lascivious exhibition of the genitals after the

compliance date, this comment implies, the depiction would be one of lascivious

exhibition of the genitals that was “in part” created after the compliance date of the final

rule, and the final rule would not apply. The Department disagrees. No depiction of

lascivious exhibition of the genitals was contained in this image before the compliance

date of the regulation. All such material appeared only after the compliance date of the

regulation, and, therefore, such material is covered by the final rule.

56

Third, a depiction of actual sexually explicit material as it was then defined, but

which did not depict lascivious exhibition of the genitals, could have been produced

before the compliance date of the final rule. After that date, a producer might then add

lascivious exhibition of the genitals to the depiction itself or to a connected depiction.

According to the implication of the comment, section 2257 could not apply to the

depiction that contains lascivious exhibition of the genitals because it was produced in

part prior to the compliance date of the final rule. In fact, the image was already covered

by the statute because it displayed actual sexually explicit content as that term was

defined prior to the compliance date of the final rule. Nothing in the Act made material

that was previously subject to section 2257 lose that status. No depiction of actual

sexually explicit conduct involving lascivious depiction of the genitals was produced in

whole or in part prior to the compliance date. Notwithstanding that the depiction of

lascivious exhibition was added after the compliance date, the depiction nonetheless is

subject to section 2257. Otherwise, any depiction of actual child pornography could be

taken out of the scope of section 2257 by modifying or connecting to such an image a

depiction of lascivious exhibition of the genitals that was produced prior to the

compliance date of the final rule. A statute passed to enhance prosecution of child

pornography cannot reasonably be read so as to prevent the prosecution of all child

pornography offenses through such a simple subterfuge.

Fourth, a depiction could have been produced prior to the compliance date of the

final rule that depicted lascivious exhibition of the genitals and no other form of actual

sexually explicit conduct. Suppose that after the compliance date of the final rule,

another depiction of lascivious exhibition of the genitals were then added, whether or not

57

it also displayed any other example of actual sexually explicit conduct. The implication

of the comment is that the depiction contains lascivious exhibition of the genitals that was

produced “in part” before the compliance date of the final rule, and therefore is beyond

the reach of the final rule. Under this theory, even if the after-added actual sexually

explicit conduct were in fact child pornography, section 2257 could not apply because the

earlier image contained a depiction of lascivious exhibition of the genitals that was

produced prior to the compliance date of the regulation. The Department disagrees. It

will treat each such image separately. The depiction of lascivious exhibition of the

genitals that was produced before the compliance date of the final rule will not be

governed by the final rule although some of the image was produced after its compliance

date. This is the case because part of the depiction was produced before the compliance

date. The connected depiction of actual sexual sexually explicit conduct in this example

was produced after the compliance date of the rule, and must conform to its strictures.

Fifth, a depiction could have been produced before the compliance date of the rule

that contained both lascivious exhibition of the genitals and actual sexually explicit

conduct as it was defined before passage of the Adam Walsh Act. Then, following the

compliance date of the final rule, the depiction could have had appended to it any form of

actual sexually explicit conduct, including actual child pornography. Under the

implication of the comment, the depiction would contain, in part, lascivious exhibition of

the genitals that was produced before the compliance date of the Act, and, therefore, none

of the material would be subject to the final rule. Under this approach, even the material

that was actual sexually explicit conduct under its pre-Act definition would no longer be

covered by section 2257. The Department disagrees. There is no indication that

58

Congress intended to accomplish that result. Under this approach, every example of

child pornography—even those that have been subject to section 2257—could never

yield a prosecution if it were appended to a depiction of lascivious exhibition of the

genitals that was produced before the compliance date of the final rule. No such result is

required. In this circumstance, each depiction would be treated separately. The part of

the depiction that involved only lascivious exhibition of the genitals and was produced

prior to the compliance date of the final rule would not be subject to the final rule. The

other parts of the depiction would be subject to the final rule, either because they were

examples of actual sexually explicit conduct as that term was defined before the

compliance date of the final rule or they were produced after the compliance date of the

final rule and met the definition of the term as it existed upon that compliance date.

Inspections

Although the proposed rule made no changes to the inspection requirements

contained in § 75.5, the Department received a number of comments on the existing

regulations.

One comment proposes that the amount of time for which business premises be

open for inspections should not be 20 hours per week as per § 75.5(c). The comment

says that there is a need to address inspection timing where a producer has an entirely

separate full-time job elsewhere. Two comments, including this one, contend that this

problem would be eliminated by using third-party record-keepers. Four comments state

that small businesses in this field work out of their homes, and cannot staff their

operation for 20 hours per week while performing outside employment. These comments

also expressed concern about inspections occurring in their homes.

59

The same question was raised in the context of the rulemaking on the prior

Statement of Location of Books and Records

The proposed rule changes the requirement under § 75.6(a) that producers place

on every “copy” of a depiction of sexually explicit conduct a statement that indicates the

location of books and records. Under the current regulation, that statement could be

contained in a label or a hyperlink. The proposed rule would require that the definition of

“copy” mean that the producer must attach a “statement describing the location of records

. . . [that is to] be affixed to every page of a Web site (controlled by the producer) on

which visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct appear.”

One comment argues that an exemption statement is not required if a depiction is

produced by foreign producers who did not intend at the time of production for the

depiction to enter the United States market.

65

The Department does not adopt this comment. Determining when the producers

of the foreign production intended to distribute the depiction in the United States would

be essentially impossible, leaving producers free to claim that they had no such intention

on the date of original production. If the depiction is made available in the United States,

then the disclosure statement is required, regardless of the intent at the time of

production.

Eleven comments claim that the proposed rule’s change to including the statement

on every page could lead to harassment of webpage operators who operate their sexually

explicit businesses out of their homes, potentially resulting in physical injury, stalking,

burglary, or identity theft. They say that placing a link on the webpage constitutes

affixing the copy to a webpage but avoids harassment risk because the exposure of the

custodian’s name will be limited to people who are seriously seeking the records

information. Two commenters raise their concerns that sharing this information with

secondary producers could result in the same harms and ask that secondary producers not

keep this information. Nine comments raise similar harms as potentially occurring to

performers if the location of the records were placed on every page. One comment

expresses concern that the primary producer’s sharing with others of the addresses and

other contact information could make it liable for how the information might be used by

others, including crimes against the performers. Two comments request that the

secondary producer’s home address not appear on the disclosure statement, while another

comment recommends that the secondary producer’s street address be included but not

the street address of the primary producer, which would keep the secondary producer’s

statements of locations of records from being unmanageably long due to the inclusion of

66

other producers’ locations. One comment states that the proposed rule will greatly

increase exposure of identification of producers, chill protected speech, and serve the

rule’s purpose no better than a link would.

One comment reported that Web sites based on static pages would have to

manually update every page if changes must be made to the compliance notice, such as

the publication date, business address, producer name, and custodian name. Each update

would cause the potential for error, and each honest mistake could result in prosecution.

Although dynamic sites could more easily update the compliance notice, extra processing

by the Web site server would be necessary, which is costly. There would be a

considerable extra load on the server for individual page compliance, according to the

comment, and dynamic pages will face technical challenges if operators of such Web

sites are to comply.

The Department adopts these comments in part. The Act requires that the

location of the records must appear on each “copy” of a depiction of sexually explicit

conduct, meaning every webpage for internet sites. The Department believes that its final

rule allowing producers to place records in the care of third-party custodians will obviate

any harms to performers that might otherwise occur due to disclosure of the address

where the records are kept. It also will amend the final rule to permit the posting of a link

or “mouseover” on each webpage to satisfy the requirement that every page of a Web site

provide the location where the required records are stored.

Five comments say that a hyperlink text to a full statement that can be updated as

needed would fulfill the purpose of the proposed rule. The hyperlink would appear on

each page. One of these comments notes that the Act requires that a notice appear on

67

every page on which a depiction appears, but that notice could still appear in a dedicated

link. It claims that although the Act required that the notice appear on every page, the

Act did not alter the manner in which the notice is presented. One comment says that the

Web site could use an appropriately labeled link that opens to several pages of disclosure

statements or an elaborate table of disclosure statements. Producers could use a series of

links to keep individual disclosure statements close to the galleries to which they relate.

One comment believes that one notice linked to every page of a site provides everything

the Department needs to enforce the statute by identifying the responsible record and the

place where the records are located.

Four comments claim that the requirement that a notice appear on every page

would ruin the aesthetics of the Web site. Attention of viewers is measured in seconds,

according to these comments, and clutter will harm gaining attention. One comment

thought that a solution to the aesthetics problem would be to avoid having the disclosure

statement appear on the face of the image, so as not to increase the size of the image files

or to harm the integrity of the image itself. If the disclosure statement appeared in a

comment field within the digital file, at a defined location, then both the producer and the

Department would know where it could be found, the comment concluded.

The Department adopts these comments in part. Without accepting as valid every

fear that the comments raise, the Department does believe that the language in the

proposed rule, and even its comments at 72 FR at 38035, allow it to require a lessburdensome

disclosure statement than commenters anticipated by eliminating language in

the current regulation that permitted a home page statement or hyperlink on that page.

Although the current regulations that allow such a statement to be placed only on the

68

home page cannot be squared with the statutory changes, the Department does believe

that the Act would permit the required statement that appears on each page to be a

hyperlink that contained all the statutorily required record-keeping compliance

information. By adopting this change, the Department believes that it will respond to

essentially every concern that a comment raised regarding privacy, threats, aesthetics, or

computer technology.

Seven comments state that moving the disclosure statement from the main page to

every page is unnecessary and a nuisance. One comment says that each printed page is

necessary for records and books, but an explanation is needed for applying this mandate

to electronic media. Another comment thought that the disclosure statement could be

affixed to a magazine or other printed matter in the same fashion as a shoplifting tag, not

printed on the copy itself, and that only movies would actually require appearance of the

statement on the work itself. Two comments state that the existing requirement of a

disclosure statement on the homepage or principal URL of a Web site has worked well

and that there is no need for it to appear on each and every webpage where the triggering

content appears.

Two comments state that it is impossible to apply the requirement that the

disclosure statement appear on every webpage to live webcasts. Another contends that it

is unrealistic to expect a separate disclosure statement or a separate line in a disclosure

statement for every separate work that is placed on each and every webpage. One

comment notes that for composite works, there are thousands of images often organized

into separate galleries. A web page could have an index page with 100 images that were

69

produced on different dates, according to the comment, and that more generality should

be allowed in the statement.

The Department declines to adopt these statements. Section 2257A(e)(1) requires

that a statement describing where the records are located “shall cause to be affixed to

every copy,” and provides specifically that “the term ‘copy’ includes every page of a

website on which matter describes in subsection (a) appears.” The Department must

issue regulations implementing the statute, and it is prevented from adopting those

comments asking that each page not be required to contain the disclosure notice, or

stating that such notices are unnecessary, that notices should be able to appear on a

separate tag, or that it is unrealistic to expect that each webpage will contain a disclosure

notice. And because the statutory requirement applies to “[a]ny person to whom

subsection (a) applies,” the Department may exempt neither primary producers,

secondary producers, nor producers of live webcasts. As noted in the proposed rule, and

finalized in this rule at § 75.2(a)(1), however, producers of live webcasts may satisfy the

requirement by “includ[ing] a copy of the depiction with running-time sufficient to

identify the performer in the depiction and to associate the performer with the records

needed to confirm his or her age.”

One comment states that the records should require not the name and address of

the individual, but a title, since the name of the relevant individual changes over time.

The comment believes that such a change would avoid an invasion of privacy if the

person maintaining the records is a performer. The comment believes that this is the

same privacy interest that led the Department in the proposed rule to redact non-essential

information from copies of performers’ identification cards before providing secondary

70

producers with copies of records. The Department believes that its allowance of the

keeping of the records by third-party custodians eliminates any possibility of invasions of

privacy of this type. The Department also accepts the comment’s view that the title of

the custodian could be provided rather than the name of a specific individual, since the

responsible person could change over time, otherwise requiring that each existing

disclosure statement be changed.

One comment expressed the view that the disclosure statement should provide

information concerning the date of photography and the name, address, and title of a

person who produced it, including its insertion into a webpage, and state the name of the

person responsible for maintaining the records. The Department declines to adopt this

comment, because the Department does not believe it is necessary for the disclosure

statement to contain all of this information. Instead, the Department believes that the

objectives of the statute are advanced through the rule’s record-keeping requirements,

which will ensure that the necessary information is available, while at the same time

reducing the burdens on entities compared to those that would be imposed by additional

requirements concerning the disclosure statement.

One comment recommends that the existing regulations on the appearance of the

disclosure statement contained at § 75.6(e) should be changed. It contends that the

typeface requirements are inadequate because point size is an objective criterion. It

would prefer that the regulation specify how large the type should be but not how large it

is compared to other printing. It also argues that a point-measured minimum size is

irrelevant on a computer site because the appearance of the text will depend on the

settings of each monitor displaying it.

71

The Department has declined to adopt this comment. Precisely because typeface

appearance can vary, the Department believes that it is important to require that

disclosure-statement typeface be a certain size compared to other printing. Because the

size of computer screens and their settings tend to vary little among the general public,

the Department concludes that specifications governing the size of type should be

retained.

One comment asks which entity bears the obligation of providing a disclosure

statement when one Web site frames content originating from, and wholly contained on,

the servers of another producer, where the content is selected and changed in the

originator’s sole and exclusive discretion. The Department states that where a Web site

operator operates as a producer, even as a secondary producer, it must comply with the

disclosure statement requirements of the final rule. Where a Web site operator is a

distributor, it need not comply with those requirements.

Date of Original Production

The proposed rule also would require that the date of original production be

among the records that are required to be contained in the statement describing the

location of books and records. One comment argues that it is sensible to use the date of

first production because this is the date that matters for the production of child

pornography, to which the records relate, and which would determine when the recordkeeping

obligations expire. However, this comment states that the date of original

production should not appear on the disclosure statement because it is important only

once the performers’ dates of birth are known. Since that information is not a part of the

disclosure statement, the comment states that inclusion of the production date makes no

72

sense. The commenter suggests requiring that the records referred to in the disclosure

statement themselves detail the relevant production dates: the earliest date that the

primary producer created any sexual image depicted of each performer.

As noted above, the Department adopts this comment.

Location of the Statement

One comment requests that the Department describe how the rules requiring a

statement apply to simulated sexually explicit material on digital video discs (DVDs) that

are divided into different segments, such as bonus material. The regulations at § 75.8, the

comment notes, tell what should be done where end credits exist, but often such bonus

material has no end credits. The comment advocates that § 75.8(e) should apply in this

circumstance rather than §§ 75.8(b) and (c). The comment also asks the Department to

conclude that the statement can appear at the end of each item of bonus material

available, or if identical for all materials, in a separate dedicated menu option that opens

the statement.

The Department adopts this comment and has clarified in the final rule that for

purpose of § 75.8, a DVD containing multiple depictions is a single matter for which the

statement may be located in a single place covering all depictions on the DVD. This is

analogous to a magazine containing multiple depictions, per § 75.8(a), locating the

statement on a single page.

Two comments state that some Web sites contain thousands of pages of

constitutionally protected visual depictions and other content. They question whether

producers would be required to display thousands of disclosure statements, especially

when so many different depictions can appear on one site. They contend that affixing

73

disclosure statements to thousands of depictions would create a stigma based on an

ambiguous definition of lascivious exhibition in one picture out of thousands.

The Department does not adopt these comments. If any entity operates a Web site

that contains thousands of pages depictions of sexually explicit conduct, then those

entities are required by law to display thousands of disclosure statements. As noted, the

Department in this final rule is permitting those statements to appear as hyperlinks. The

number of depictions on a site is not the relevant issue, but whether on a particular

webpage there appears one or more such depictions. If the owner of a Web site chooses

to display thousands of depictions on one webpage and one of those is a depiction of

lascivious exhibition, then that webpage must contain a disclosure statement. The

comments offer no evidence to support a view that such a statement would create a

stigma, nor does the Department believe that “lascivious exhibition” is defined

ambiguously. Any person who believes that only one depiction among thousands is of

lascivious exhibition can display that depiction on a webpage unto itself. Moreover, a

studio or any other entity that conforms to section 2257A’s certification safe harbor will

not face the situation that these comments hypothesize.

These comments also ask the Department to delay the compliance date of the

disclosure statement until the Department issues its regulations effectuating the safe

harbor of section 2257A, which may apply to the entities referenced in the comments.

The Department believes that Congress intended that the safe harbor was to be available

to entities who qualified for its operation in a manner that would preclude the need for

such entities to conform to the disclosure and record-keeping requirements. Therefore, as

noted earlier, the Department adopts this portion of the comments.

74

One comment specifically requests that the current language of § 75.8(d) that

permits a hyperlink on the homepage of a URL be retained. The Department declines to

adopt this comment. The Act requires a disclosure statement on each page of a Web site.

As noted above, however, the Department will allow that statement to appear as a

hyperlink that is displayed on each page that depicts sexually explicit conduct.

One comment asks that if the Department allows a hyperlink on the index page,

that it make clear where the disclosure hyperlink should appear since the first page may

not contain any covered depiction. Because the Department does not adopt the view that

the Act permits the appearance of a hyperlink only on an index page, it does not adopt

this comment.

Two comments ask whether the disclosure statement that the Act requires for

each page depicting actual sexually explicit conduct applies to every page of such Web

site, or only the pages that contain actual sexually explicit conduct. The Department

responds to this comment by referencing that the plain language of section 2257A(e)(1)

of the Act provides that a disclosure statement must appear on “every page of a website

on which matter described in subsection (a) appears.”

One comment asks what the word “matter” means, and the Department again

references the plain language of the Act in subsection (a), which refers to depictions of

sexually explicit conduct. Another comment asks whether a Web site is a “matter”

subject to regulation and, if so, whether each of its elements is an individually “matter”

for such a purpose. It also inquires whether a Web site as a whole is a “matter” or

whether it is simply an amalgamation of many matters, and whether the Department is

75

requiring many different disclosure statements because a Web site has many different

pages.

The Department answers this comment by stating that it requires many different

disclosure statements only when a Web site displays many different depictions of sexual

explicit conduct. The Act requires that when any page of any Web site depicts any

sexually explicit conduct—“matter” as contained in subsection (a)—then the page must

contain a disclosure statement. Hence, it is not the Web site or its pages that is a

“matter,” but the depiction itself.

One comment related that neither the statute nor regulations define a “web page.”

The comment says that the term could mean a screen that appears on a computer, an

HTML document on the Internet, or anything covered by a single URL. The comment

suggests that a definition is needed to avoid vagueness and provides a list of 28

definitions of the term.

The Department declines to adopt this comment. The use of the term “web page”

in the regulation predates the amendment of the statute in the Act, and the lack of a

definition of “web page” was not previously raised in the comments in the rulemaking for

the 2005 version of the regulation. That is the case even though the definition of “URL”

confirms the Department’s belief that a definition of the term is not needed for

compliance with the regulation.

The same comment contends that it would be impractical and unnecessary to

require the disclosure statement to appear on the screen during the playing of a video clip

that depicts actual sexually explicit conduct. The Department does not accept this

76

comment. It refers the commenter to the terms of existing § 75.8(b), which describes

where the disclosure statement must appear for a motion picture or videotape.

Exemption Statement

One comment states that there should not be an exemption statement under

§ 75.7. Even in the presence of such a statement, the comment contends that the

government must still prove all the elements of an offense. It says that many depictions

are not required to contain a disclosure statement—not just ones produced before the

compliance date, but also later depictions for which the record-keeping period has

expired. The comment also maintains that no such exemption statement is required if a

depiction is foreign-produced by producers who did not intend at the time of production

for the depiction to enter the United States market, or by married couples who produce

videotaped images of themselves for their own personal use.

The Department declines to adopt these comments. It does not agree that foreignproduced

materials will not require disclosure statements if they were not intended to be

made available in the United States at the time of production. Determining when the

producers of the foreign production intended to distribute the depiction in the United

States would be essentially impossible, and even if it were possible to do so, producers

would simply claim that on the date of original production, no such intent had manifested

itself. If the depiction is made available in the United States, then the disclosure

statement is required, regardless of the intent at the time of production. With respect to

personal use, the Department does not construe section 2257 and part 75 to encompass an

adult couple’s recording of its intimate activity for the couple's private use in the home.

77

As outlined above, Congress in the Act filled two gaps left by the original

section 2257 by amending section 2257 to cover lascivious exhibition and by enacting

section 2257A to cover simulated sexually explicit conduct. In enacting section 2257A,

Congress determined it would be appropriate, in certain circumstances, to exempt

producers of visual depictions of lascivious exhibition (for which records must be kept

under section 2257, as amended by the Act) and producers of visual depictions of

simulated sexually explicit conduct (for which records must be kept under section

Who May Certify

Any entity that meets the statutory requirements for eligibility, which are

incorporated verbatim in the proposed rule, may certify that it meets the requirements of

section 2257A(h). In addition, an entity may certify for itself and all sub-entities that it

owns or controls. The names of all sub-entities covered must be listed in such

certification, however, and must be cross-referenced to the matter for which the subentity

served as the producer.

Both United States and foreign entities may certify. In the case of a certification

by a foreign entity, the foreign entity, which may be unlikely to collect and maintain

information in accordance with United States federal and state tax and other laws, may

certify that it maintains the required information in accordance with their foreign

equivalents. The Department considers the statute’s use of a broad description of laws

and other documentation that would satisfy the certification to provide authority for this

permission to foreign entities.

The proposed rule would have required that the certification be signed by the

chief executive officer of the entity making the certification, or in the event an entity

does not have a chief executive officer, the senior manager responsible for overseeing

the entity’s activities.

One comment recommends that due to chief executive officers’ demanding

schedules, other executive officers should be able to sign the certification. The

Department adopts this comment.

79

One comment urges the Department to confirm that if an entity produces both

materials that are and are not covered by the certification regime, the entity is not

disqualified from using the certification regime for covered materials. The Department

adopts this comment.

The certification regime in the proposed rule was similar for producers of

lascivious exhibition and producers of simulated sexually explicit conduct, but differed

in some material respects, as described below.

Time Period for Certification

The proposed rule would have required the certification to be filed every two

years. The Department could have chosen a shorter period for certification, a longer

period, or a permanent certification. The Department believed, however, that two years

is a reasonable period, as it would ensure that certifications remained up-to-date without

imposing overly onerous burdens on regulated entities.

One comment recommends the elimination of proposed § 75.9(e), which would

require certifications every two years. The comment points out that if the requirement to

list the titles of works covered by the certification and other related information were

deleted, it would not be necessary to require producers to submit certifications every

two years. Instead, the Department could simply require re-certification if there are

material changes in the information the producer certified under § 75.9(c)(1) and (2)

concerning how the producer collects and maintains information concerning its

employees who perform in its works covered by the certification regime.

The Department adopts this comment. As explained below, as the Department

adopts various comments concerning the information to be provided in the certification

80

under § 75.9, it is not necessary to require producers to re-certify every two years. It is,

however, still necessary to establish certifications on the record as soon as possible.

Accordingly, the Department will require an initial certification due 180 days after the

publication of this proposed rule as a final rule. This will provide sufficient time for

entities to determine if they wish to certify and to come into compliance with the

certification requirements. Initial certifications of producers who begin production after

the publication of this proposed rule but before the expiration of the 180-day period

following its publication as a final rule are due on the last day of the 180-day period.

Initial certifications of producers who begin production after the expiration of the 180-

day period are due within 60 days of the start of production. In any case where a due

date or last day of a time period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday, the due

date or last day of a time period is considered to be the next day that is not a Saturday,

Sunday, or federal holiday.

Enforcement of the Certification

All of the statements in the certification are subject to investigation. The

proposed rule stated that “a false certification will result in a violation of section 2257A

One comment asks the Department to clarify that a “false certification” is one

that is knowingly and willfully false, and to specify the criminal statutes that may be

violated by such a false certification.

The Department adopts this comment. The federal statute criminalizing a false

certification is 18 U.S.C. 1001, which requires that a statement be knowingly and

willfully false. Depending on the facts of a particular case, however, a person

81

submitting a false certification could violate other federal statutes. The Department

notes that a false certification would necessarily result in a violation of sections 2257 or

2257A if a producer submitting that false certification did not comply with the recordkeeping

provisions of the relevant statute.

Form and Content of the Certification

The certification regime in the proposed rule requires that a producer provide a

letter to the Attorney General that:

1) sets out the statutory basis under which it and any relevant sub-entities are

permitted to avail themselves of the safe harbor;

2) certifies that regularly and in the normal course of business, the producer, and

any relevant sub-entities collect and maintain individually identifiable information

regarding all performers employed by the producer who appear in visual depictions of

simulated sexually explicit conduct or of lascivious exhibition;

3) lists the titles, names, or other identifying information of visual depictions (or

matter containing them) that include non-employee performers;

4) lists the titles, names, or other identifying information of visual depictions (or

matter containing them) produced since the last certification;

5) certifies that any foreign producers of visual depictions acquired by the

certifying entity either maintain the records required by section 2257A or have

themselves provided a certification to the Attorney General, and the producer making

the certification has copies of those records or certification; or, for visual depictions of

simulated sexually explicit conduct only, has taken reasonable steps to confirm that the

performers are not minors;

82

6) lists the titles, names, or other identifying information of the foreign-produced

visual depictions (or matter containing them) that include performers for whom no

information is available but for whom the U.S. entity has taken reasonable steps to

confirm that the performers are not minors; and

7) certifies that U.S. primary producers of visual depictions acquired by the

certifying entity either maintain the records required by section 2257A or certify

themselves under the statute’s safe harbor, and that the producer making the

The Department received several comments on the certification provisions of the

proposed rule. These comments are discussed below in turn.

One comment states that the Department should prepare a form for the

certification instead of requiring producers to submit a letter.

The Department declines to adopt this comment. As outlined below, the

Department has simplified the requirements for the certification in response to

comments received. Accordingly, the short letter that would be required would not be

significantly more burdensome on producers, if at all, than requiring producers to fill

out a form.

Statutory Basis for the Certification

The first requirement is straightforward—the entity providing the certification

must state why it is entitled to certify under the terms of the statute. This will include

citation to the specific subsections of the statute under which it is making the

certification and to basic evidence justifying that citation. Specifically, the letter should

either: (i) cite 18 U.S.C. 2257A(h)(1)(A) and 28 CFR § 75.9 and state that the visual

83

depictions listed in the letter are “intended for commercial distribution,” “created as a

part of a commercial enterprise” that meets the requirements of 18 U.S.C.

2257A(h)(1)(A)(ii), and are “not produced, marketed or made available . . . in

circumstances such tha[t] an ordinary person would conclude that . . . [they] contain a

visual depiction that is child pornography as defined in section 2256(8)”; or (ii) cite 18

U.S.C. 2257A(h)(1)(B) and 28 CFR § 75.9 and state that the visual depictions listed in

the letter are “subject to regulation by the Federal Communications Commission acting

in its capacity to enforce 18 U.S.C. 1464 regarding the broadcast of obscene, indecent or

profane programming” and are “created as a part of a commercial enterprise” that meets

the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257A(h)(1)(B)(ii).

No comments were received on this provision.

Certification of Collection and Maintenance of Records

The second requirement is the certification under either subsection

2257A(h)(1)(A)(ii) or (B)(ii). Under either subsection, the certifier must demonstrate its

compliance with five elements: that the entity 1) “regularly and in the normal course of

business collects and maintains” 2) “individually identifiable information” 3) “regarding

all performers, including minor performers employed by” the entity 4) “pursuant to

Federal and State tax, labor, and other laws, labor agreements, or otherwise pursuant to

industry standards” 5) “where such information includes the name, address, and date of

birth of the performer.” The Department will consider any entity’s procedures that

include these basic elements to be in compliance with the certification.

One comment states that the proposed rule’s certification statement is

inconsistent with the statutory safe harbor provision because it requires the producer to

84

certify that it maintains records concerning all performers employed by the producer

who appear in depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct or lascivious exhibition,

whereas the statute permits a blanket certification as to all performers employed by the

producer. The comment then states that requiring the producer to certify only as to

performers who appear in visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct or

lascivious exhibition would first require the producer to determine which depictions

may contain simulated sexually explicit conduct or lascivious exhibition, which would

be difficult and time-consuming (another comment also notes the “troubling” nature of

requiring producers to determine what materials depict lascivious exhibition or

simulated sexually explicit conduct “given the vagueness of the definitions for these

terms”). Moreover, the comment states that the proposed rule would be inconsistent

with Congressional intent because it would deny producers the ability to make the

blanket certification contemplated by the statute. The comment also states that a blanket

certification will better serve the Department’s goals than a tailored certification. The

comment thus recommends that the certification language at § 75.9(c)(2) be revised to

end at “all performers employed by [name of entity],” deleting “who appear in visual

depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct or of lascivious exhibition of the

genitals or pubic area.” The comment makes a conforming recommendation that the

definitions of “regularly and in the normal course of business collects and maintains”

and “all performers, including minor performers” at § 75.1(p) and (r), respectively, be

amended to clarify that the certification applies to all performers a producer employs,

not just those appearing in depictions of lascivious exhibition or simulated sexually

explicit conduct.

85

The Department adopts this comment. Section 75.9(c)(2) in the final rule thus

has been amended to end at “all performers employed by [name of entity].” Sections

75.1(p) and (r) in the final rule have also been amended pursuant to the comment.

As an extra precaution against evasion, the proposed rule’s third requirement

would have been a list of all visual depictions or matter containing visual depictions in

which non-employees have engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This would have

provided the Department with notice and a record that such visual depictions by the

producers exist and, if necessary, would have enabled the Department to investigate the

bona fides of the certifying entity. The Department believed the list would not be so

burdensome as to have defeated the purpose of the certification regime—namely,

reducing the burden of the record-keeping requirements otherwise imposed in part 75.

Rather than maintaining age-verification records, copies of each performance, etc., the

certifying entities would have needed only to provide a list of their productions that

include depictions of lascivious exhibition or simulated sexually explicit conduct by

non-employee performers.

Four comments state that this provision, § 75.9(c)(3) of the proposed rule, is

overly burdensome, not contemplated by the statute, and should be stricken. Four

comments also state that § 75.9(c)(4) and (6) should be stricken, while three comments

state that § 75.9(c)(5) and (7) should be stricken. Because these comments generally

apply to § 75.9(c)(3) through (7) of the proposed rule, the Department will summarize

and respond to them all here rather than repetitively throughout the preamble.

86

These comments make various claims, described below, in seeking the deletion

of these provisions. First, these provisions go beyond the statutory requirements for the

certification by requiring the producer to determine whether materials depict lascivious

exhibition or simulated sexually explicit conduct. Second, these provisions are

inconsistent with the statutory requirements for the certification by requiring the

producers to make lists, whereas the statute does not mention lists at all. Third, the list

requirements would likely be found unconstitutional because they would result in

eviscerating the statutory safe harbor: By limiting the safe harbor to producers who go

through the burdensome process of identifying which materials depict lascivious

exhibition or simulated sexually explicit conduct, the proposed rule would impose

substantial content-based restrictions on protected speech, with the result that the

government would interfere with protected speech in the name of targeting unprotected

speech. Fourth, unlike other provisions of the relevant statutes, which expressly permit

the Department to specify the records that must be kept and how they must be

maintained, section 2257A(h) does not provide the Department any flexibility as to what

a producer must certify to be eligible for the safe harbor. Fifth, the list provisions are

inconsistent with Congressional intent that once a producer makes the certification

required by statue, it should “not be subject to the more burdensome requirements of

this statute.” Sixth, much “back office” work will be required to enable producers to

have a reasonable basis for the expansive certifications required. Seventh, while the

certification process as outlined in the proposed rule may be less burdensome than full

record-keeping under part 75, the difference is only a matter of degree, as the amount of

87

information required to complete a certification under the proposed rule would be

significant.

The Department adopts these comments in part, and will strike § 75.9(c)(3), (4),

(6), and (7) from the final rule. As explained below, the Department will amend

§ 75.9(c)(5) in the final rule rather than striking it entirely.

The fourth requirement in the proposed rule would have provided the

Department with both a notice and a record regarding which depictions or matters are

subject to the certification. In drafting the proposed rule, the Department considered

simply allowing entities to make a blanket assertion that they maintain the required

records on all employees who perform in all matter they produce. The Department

initially determined, however, that depiction-specific information would enable

investigators more easily to determine whether a visual depiction is covered by the

section 2257A certification regime. The list submitted by a certifying entity would have

included the titles, names, or other identifying information of visual depictions acquired

by the certifying entity from foreign or U.S. primary producers.

As noted above, the Department is adopting comments to strike this provision

from the final rule.

Certification for Entities Acquiring Foreign-Produced Matter

The fifth requirement in the proposed rule was a subsidiary certification for

entities acquiring matter subject to the record-keeping requirements from foreign

producers. The Department understands that many producers in the United States

88

acquire films and other matter that may contain visual depictions of lascivious

exhibition or simulated sexually explicit conduct from producers abroad. In order to

produce that matter for the U.S. market and comply with the law, the U.S. entity

acquiring the matter must certify either that the foreign producer in the first instance

maintained the records required by the statute and that the U.S. entity has copies of

those records, or that the foreign entity has certified on its own that it (the foreign

producer) maintains foreign-equivalent records in the normal course of business, and

that the U.S. entity has a copy of that certification. The Department believes it is

appropriate for the exemption to apply based on certifications that foreign producers

maintain foreign-equivalent records because foreign countries generally have tax and

employment laws requiring identification of employees that are substantially similar to

requirements under U.S. law.

There may be cases where a U.S. entity acquires foreign-produced matter and

cannot certify the information above. In such a case, the U.S. entity would not be able

to produce the matter in the United States. Denying the market in the United States

access to a large amount of foreign-produced matter, however, could be construed as a

burden on American citizens’ First Amendment rights to free expression. At the same

time, the Department cannot risk permitting either foreign children to be exploited in the

visual depictions produced for the U.S. market or evasion of the statute by unscrupulous

U.S. producers.

Therefore, U.S. entities making the certification may certify that, to the extent

that they have acquired visual depictions or matter containing visual depictions of

simulated sexually explicit conduct from foreign entities, and, to the extent that the

89

primary foreign producer does not either maintain the records required by the statute or

provide a certification to the Attorney General itself, the entity making the certification

has made reasonable efforts to ensure that no performer in any such foreign visual

depiction is a minor.

One comment describes as vague and unreasonably burdensome the proposed

rule’s certification at § 75.9(c)(5) that U.S. secondary producers take “reasonable steps

to confirm” that performers in foreign works are not minors. The comment states that

the Department should either impose a lesser standard, such as a good faith belief that

the foreign work does not depict minors, or specify what is meant by “reasonable steps.”

The comment suggests that “reasonable steps” could include reliance on representations

and warranties from a foreign producer. Another comment makes the same points,

stating that if the proposed rule’s § 75.9(c)(5) is not stricken, the section should be

amended to specify what constitutes “reasonable steps” and that such steps should not

impose a duty to investigate but rather should permit reliance on a review of the work

itself and/or reliance on a representation or warranty of the foreign producer. This

comment also notes that the certification as to the age of the performers should

explicitly state that the performer was not a minor at the time the visual depiction was

produced.

The Department adopts these comments to the extent they recommend

clarification of “reasonable steps,” with the caveat that any review of the materials or

reliance on the representations made by a foreign producer must itself be in good faith.

The Department also adopts these comments to the extent they recommend the

certification be revised to state the performer’s age at the time the visual depiction was

90

originally produced. Accordingly, the corresponding section in the final rule

(designated as § 75.9(c)(3) due to the deletion of the proposed rule’s § 75.9(c)(3) and

(4)) will explain that reasonable steps may include, but are not limited to, a good-faith

review of the material itself or good-faith reliance on representations and warranties

from a foreign producer, and the certification will be revised to state that the performers

were not minors at the time the visual depiction was originally produced.

One comment states that the proposed rule’s § 75.9(c)(5) would require a

producer to take affirmative steps where a foreign producer either did not make a

certification itself to the Attorney General or does not collect and maintain the requisite

records, which would be an additional burden. Another comment vigorously opposes

any suggestion that foreign producers must comply with any provision of section 2256

or 2257A in order for their material to be eligible into the United States, and

acknowledged that the Department itself recognized that any such suggestion could be

construed as a burden on First Amendment rights. A third comment also notes the

Department’s recognition of this constitutional concern, stating that “permitting a

secondary producer to make an alternative certification [the “reasonable steps”

certification under the proposed rule’s § 75.9(c)(5)] for such [foreign-produced]

materials is consistent with the purpose of the Act and constitutional principles.” This

commenter believes that the alternative certification “is a reasonable accommodation to

ensure that American citizens are not deprived of access to a substantial amount of

foreign material.”

The Department of course recognizes that the “reasonable steps” certification

would require a U.S. producer to take additional steps concerning foreign-produced

91

material if the foreign producer neither has made a certification to the Attorney General

nor collects and maintains foreign-equivalent records. For the reasons outlined above,

however, a certification that provided no assurance or indication whatsoever that the

performers in foreign-produced works are not minors could lead to the possibility that

U.S. producers could inadvertently introduce foreign material depicting minors engaged

in simulated sexually explicit conduct into the United States market. The Department

believes that the alternate certification for foreign-produced material in the final rule,

which is significantly less burdensome than that originally proposed (because it does not

require the production of any list of covered material and specifies that a U.S. producer

may rely on the representations and warranties of the foreign producer), strikes an

appropriate balance.

The proposed rule would not have permitted the same certification process for

visual depictions of lascivious exhibition acquired from foreign entities. The

Department considered that the risks of exploitation of children in such visual depictions

and the risk of evasion of the record-keeping requirements would be too great to permit

the accommodation for visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct outlined

above. The Department was further concerned that providing a method for weaker

enforcement of section 2257 with regard to lascivious exhibition would undermine the

existing section 2257 requirements. The Department did note, however, that Congress

clearly considered non-compliance with record-keeping requirements concerning visual

depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct (under section 2257A) to be a lessserious

crime than non-compliance with analogous requirements for visual depictions of

actual sexually explicit conduct (under section 2257), as exemplified by the

92

misdemeanor penalty for violation of the former section versus the felony penalty for

violation of the latter section.

Three comments state that the alternative certification outlined above concerning

foreign-produced material depicting simulated sexually explicit conduct should also be

available for foreign material depicting lascivious exhibition. One of these comments

provided the following proposed text for this certification: “I hereby certify that with

respect to foreign primary producers who do not either collect and maintain the records

required by sections 2257 and 2257A of title 18 of the U.S. Code, or certify to the

Attorney General that they collect and maintain individually identifiable information

regarding all performers, including minor performers, whom they employ pursuant to

tax, labor, and other laws, labor agreements, or otherwise pursuant to industry standards,

where such information includes the names, addresses, and dates of birth of the

performers, in accordance with 28 CFR part 75, [name of entity] has taken reasonable

steps to confirm that the performers in any depictions that may potentially constitute . . .

[simulated sexually explicit conduct] or . . . [lascivious exhibition] are not minors.”

This comment further notes that “[d]ue to the comparably small number of foreign films

at issue, the burdens associated with making such reasonable efforts would be minimal

when compared with the burdens of reviewing all domestically-produced matter to

identify scenes containing” simulated sexually explicit conduct or lascivious exhibition.

One comment explained that the Department was wrong to suggest, by providing

an alternate certification for materials depicting simulated sexually explicit conduct but

not for materials depicting lascivious exhibition, that “posing a minor for simulated

sexual conduct is necessarily less abusive than depicting a minor in the lascivious

93

display of genitals or pubic area” and that the Department should treat both kinds of

material similarly to minimize constitutional concerns. The comment also notes that

expanding the alternate certification to cover lascivious exhibition materials will not

place foreign children at risk of being victimized through the production of child

pornography because “the importation and even the mere possession of child

pornography remains seriously criminal in all of the United States, even if all of the

children depicted are other than U.S. nationals.” Another comment states that it was

inexplicable for the Department to permit an alternative certification for materials

depicting simulated sexually explicit conduct but not for materials depicting lascivious

exhibition.

The Department adopts these comments. Accordingly, in the final rule

§ 75.9(c)(3) (renumbered from the proposed rule’s § 75.9(c)(5)) will use the text

proposed by the comment above.

The sixth requirement in the proposed rule would have required that the entity

making the certification include a list of the visual depictions or matter, including those

visual depictions for which no records exist but for which the certifying entity had made

reasonable efforts to ensure that no performer in any visual depiction is a minor. As

with the case of non-employee performers, this list would have provided the Department

with notice and a record that such visual depictions existed and, if necessary, would

have enabled investigation of such matter. At the same time, the requirement of the list

and a certification of reasonable efforts by the secondary producer in the United States

94

would have provided as much protection as possible without unduly infringing on

constitutional rights. The Department considered that the risk of evasion would have

been mitigated by the severe criminal penalties for production of child pornography that

would apply to any matter covered by the record-keeping requirements.

As noted above, the Department is adopting comments to strike this provision

from the final rule.

Certification of Record-Keeping by Primary Producers

The seventh requirement in the proposed rule would have been that, as with

foreign primary producers, an entity acquiring visual depictions must certify either that

the primary producer in the first instance maintained the records required by the statute

and that the certifying entity has copies of those records, or that the primary producer

has certified on its own that it (the primary producer) has made a certification and that

the entity has a copy of that certification.

As noted above, the Department is adopting comments to strike this provision

from the final rule. A key consideration in the Department’s determination to adopt

these comments is that this provision necessarily would have only applied to material

produced in the United States. As the U.S. primary producers of that material would

either be required to comply with the record-keeping provisions of sections 2257 or

2257A or to have themselves provided with the certification to the Attorney General

required by § 75.9, it appears that the Act’s goals would be met without requiring the

secondary producers to provide another certification.

Application to Secondary Producers

95

The Department has received many comments on the application of the proposed

rule to secondary producers. Two comments note that the proposed rule applies to

secondary producers as of July 3, 1995, except that no penalties would be imposed

against secondary producers who failed to maintain records for acts of production that

occurred prior to the 2006 effective date of the Adam Walsh Act. The comments argue

that this would allow criminal prosecutions of secondary producers to be based on

materials that were not covered at the time of their creation. The Department believes

that application of its regulations to secondary producers has reflected the statutory

language since 1995 and that the Act reinforces this applicability. Nonetheless, the

Department, recognizing that some secondary producers might not have believed that

they were required to adhere to the requirements of part 75, agreed in the proposed rule to

apply the penalties against secondary producers only for depictions with dates of

production after the 2006 effective date of the Act. However, the statutory language is

clear that secondary producers are subject to the Act, and, therefore, it is not the case that

any prosecution of any secondary producer for failure to adhere to part 75 for depictions

originally produced prior to the Act’s 2006 effective date would subject anyone to

criminal sanctions based on materials that were not covered at the time of their creation.

One comment states that the regulations should not apply to a secondary producer

who obtained the materials before the compliance date without reproduction rights.

According to the commenter, the republication rights would be worthless since it is

impossible to go back to the primary producer to obtain those records, particularly if the

contract at the time did not permit providing the records.

96

The Department does not adopt this comment. As stated above, once the Adam

Walsh Act took effect, all secondary producers were clearly on notice that part 75 applied

to all depictions that were originally produced after the compliance date. However

difficult obtaining the necessary records may now be, the secondary producer could have

done so at the time in accordance with its statutory obligation. Failure to have done so

will not excuse noncompliance. However, as elaborated more fully below, the

Department in response to comments has changed the compliance date of the final rule

for entities who can claim the exemption from part 75 obligations that is contained in

section 2257A. Thus, although secondary producers who are governed by part 75 must

comply with its provisions with respect to depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct

originally produced after the Act’s compliance date, secondary producers who can claim

the exemption in section 2257A will not need to comply with part 75 in the interim.

Two comments argue that secondary producers will not be able to comply with

the terms of the proposed rule because primary producers have not made information

available to secondary producers in all cases due to privacy concerns. Two other

comments remark that even if the primary producer provides the records to the secondary

producer, requiring the secondary producer to keep the records harms the performers’

privacy.

The Department does not adopt these comments. The Act applies to secondary

producers, and, therefore, the final rule does so as well. Moreover, privacy concerns may

not always be the reason why a primary producer chooses not to provide such

identification records. The possibility exists that the primary producer declines to

provide the records because the models are not of legal age. Congress applied section

97

2257 to secondary producers, and reaffirmed that applicability in the Act, so that child

pornography would not be able to gain a market among secondary producers.

Eliminating that market is critical to the suppression of child pornography. Given the

Department’s willingness to allow redaction of personal information to the extent

possible to protect privacy while at the same time confirming legal age, it believes that

there will be no unwarranted invasion of the performers’ privacy as a result of the

proposed rule.

Four comments objected to applicability of the proposed rule to secondary

producers on the ground that secondary producers rarely come into contact with

performers. These commenters claim that it is impossible for secondary producers to

inspect the original identification of the performers, and that secondary producers cannot

comply with this requirement.

The Department declines to adopt these comments. As stated, Congress intended

to prevent secondary producers from creating a commercial market for child pornography

by relying on their lack of knowledge of the age of performers used by primary

producers. The Department believes that it is inaccurate to state that secondary producers

cannot comply with the proposed rule. No aspect of the rule is such that secondary

producers will find it “impossible” in any sense to comply with them. Moreover, the

legal duty that the final rule imposes on secondary producers relates to record-keeping

only. The comments’ claim that the secondary producer must inspect the original

identification documents of the performers is incorrect, although secondary producers

should take steps to ensure that they do not violate criminal prohibitions relating to child

pornography.

98

Another comment states that secondary producers cannot know whether the

information that the primary producers possess is accurate. It notes that a secondary

producer can be non-compliant despite taking all possible compliance measures. The

Department agrees that both primary and secondary producers who keep the required

records may lack full certainty that the information that they have is accurate. However,

the rule does not require that producers be completely certain of accuracy. Primary

producers must check documents and keep records based on those documents, with the

entitlement to see driver’s license or passport numbers to ensure that the identification

validly identifies that the named performer is of legal age. A secondary producer is not

required to examine documents, and if it chooses to do so, will not face liability simply

because the documents are not accurate.

Two comments contend that the proposed rule should not extend to secondary

producers because concerns relating to those entities’ document availability can be

addressed by referencing the name and address of the primary producer’s records

custodian, without requiring a duplicate and separate set of regulatory documents by the

secondary producer. A third comment makes a similar point, noting that such a reference

is permitted under the current § 75.2(b) of the regulations. The comment asks that only

primary producers—not secondary producers—be required to personally discharge the

record-keeping requirements..

The Department does not adopt these comments. Under the suggested approach,

the secondary producer will not have demonstrated that he has actually received copies of

the records from the primary producer. If secondary producers were exempted from an

obligation to keep records, then the Department could never determine the identity of the

99

primary producer. Failing to have the rule apply to secondary producers would also

thwart the language of the Act that makes section 2257 applicable to secondary

producers, increasing the chances that a commercial market would exist for child

pornography and thus for child exploitation.

One related comment notes that under the proposed rule and section 2257(f)(4),

each republisher must include the producer’s disclosure statement on every republished

copy. According to the comment, an investigator would therefore know where to find the

primary producer, and it would be easier for an investigator to locate the primary

producer rather than to inspect the secondary producer’s records. Two other comments

state that secondary producers should not be inspected because they use content provided

by primary producers; they argue that inspection of primary producers’ records would be

easier than inspecting thousands of secondary producer sites.

The Department declines to adopt these comments. The Act imposed a

requirement for secondary producers to maintain records that governs the Department’s

final regulation.

One comment posits that when original footage is created by a foreign primary

producer, but an American secondary producer seeks to use the footage in news or a

documentary, the foreign producer is beyond the reach of section 2257 and may not have

any documents. The secondary producer in this circumstance will be unable to obtain the

necessary records, and will have to forgo the footage or risk criminal penalties.

According to the comment, this would result in a ban on certain programming, raising

major First Amendment concerns.

100

The Department does not adopt this comment. In such a circumstance, the U.S.

producer would be able to rely on the certification.

General Comments

Numerous comments address the proposed rules in general ways that do not

require individual responses. For example, many comments argue that the rule is an

unconstitutional burden on free speech, a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the

Constitution, a violation of the Fourth Amendment, or a violation of privacy rights.

Other comments argue that the rule legislates morality, targets a legal industry for

harassment, impedes citizen access to the Internet, or establishes government surveillance

of citizens’ Internet activities. Some comments recommend that rather than the

government publishing this rule, the government should encourage better parenting,

enforce laws prohibiting and punishing child pornography more vigorously, or establish

an alternative age verification program, such as a database of all performers. A number

of comments claim that the rule unfairly burdens small businesses run by women. Some

comments misunderstand the scope of rule to apply to consumers of pornography and

therefore suggest that consumers be subject to age verifications procedures. Three

comments raised the possibility that producers might experience stress over the fear that

they might go to jail for inadvertently misfiling or misplacing records, another

commenter is concerned that a person could face liability for inadvertently posting a

depiction of sexually explicit conduct, and other commenters fear that producers are

liable to suit for disclosing information about performers or that a Web site operator

could be liable to suit for disclosing information about those who post depictions on their

Web sites. Other commenters request exemptions for certain types of media or Web site

101

operations that are not provided for in the statute. One comment recommends ending all

record-keeping requirements prior to this rule and starting anew.

The Department notes that these comments essentially took issue with the

underlying statute and its requirements. The Department responds with three points.

First, many of the comments either misunderstand or overstate the effect of the

regulation. Second, courts have upheld existing section 2257 and its implementing

regulation as a valid exercise of power by Congress and the Executive Branch, and the

Department believes that the Adam Walsh Act and the final regulations are as well.

Third, the Department is under a statutory obligation to publish the rule and cannot

ignore its duty or change the statutory requirements through its rulemaking. To the

extent these comments raise issues relating to the regulations themselves, the Department

also relies on the discussion in other parts of the supplementary information in support of

the rule.

Finally, the Department responds to three other comments regarding the

regulation’s applicability to non-commercial activities. One comment states that the

definition of “sell, distribute, redistribute, and re-release,” in § 75.1(d) suggests that the

entire record-keeping obligation of producers is limited to commercial production

operations. One comment stated that age-verification requirements should apply only to

producers who pay performers, not individuals who post photos of themselves, and

another comment maintains that an exemption statement should not be required if a

depiction is produced by married couples who produce videotaped images of themselves

for their own personal use.

102

The Department adopts these comments in part and rejects them in part. The

statute is not clearly limited to producers who pay performers. However, it is limited to

pornography intended for sale or trade. Section 2257 speaks in terms of participants in

the professional pornography industry: the persons exhibited are “sexual performers”

who must provide their “alias, nickname, stage, or professional name,” 18 U.S.C.

2257(b)(2), and the producer’s relationship with the “performer” is described as “hiring,

contracting for, managing and otherwise arranging for the depiction of” the individual to

performer portrayed” (suggesting multiple “performers”); a disclosure statement is to be

affixed to “every copy” of covered sexually explicit material (suggesting multiple

copies); and producers working with images already in existence by definition produce

Further, age records must be maintained at the producer’s “business premises” and made

regulations, age records must be cross-indexed by performer and by title of the explicit

Finally, records inspections may be carried out at “any establishment of a producer,” and

section 2257 further underscores Congress’s intent to regulate images produced by the

pornography industry: the age-verification system was proposed by the 1986

Pornography Commission, which described the recommended legislation as reaching

anyone “engaged in the sale or trade of sexually explicit material” so that minors could

103

be protected “through every level of the pornography industry.” Atty Gen. Comm’n on

Regulatory Flexibility Act-Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The Department of Justice drafted this rule in a way to minimize its impact on

small businesses in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612,

while meeting its intended objectives. Because the Department, based on the preliminary

information available to it through past investigations and enforcement actions involving

the affected industry, was unable to state with certainty that the proposed rule, if

promulgated as a final rule, would not have any effect on small businesses of the type

described in 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the Department prepared preliminary Regulatory Flexibility

Analyses in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604. Based on this same information, the

Department concluded that there were likely to be a number of small businesses that are

producers of sexually explicit conduct as defined in the statute, as amended by the Act.

In the proposed rules, the Department specifically requested information from affected

entities. This information was requested, in part, to assist us in determining the nature

and extent of the impact the final rule will have on affected entities. Although the

Department received some comments, the information we received was not sufficiently

detailed to allow us to state with certainty that this rule, if promulgated, will not have the

effect on small businesses of the type described in 5 U.S.C. 605. Accordingly, the

Department has prepared the following final Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603.

A. Need for and Objectives of the Rules

104

As described in detail in the “Background” section above, the objectives of the

rules were to reduce the chances that minors are depicted in actual or simulated sexually

explicit conduct by requiring that producers ensure that all performers are in fact of legal

age, so as to reduce harm to children at the time of production and in subsequent years.

The Department received 35 comments on its preliminary Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis with regard to the proposed rule implementing revised section 2257. No

commenters on the proposed rule to implement section 2257A commented specifically on

that proposed rule’s Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; comments as to the cost of that

proposed rule are addressed below in the sections on the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 and Paperwork Reduction Act.

Many of these provided general comments about expenses that small businesses

would incur without comparing such costs to their total revenues. One comment states

that individual women who put depictions of lascivious exhibition on the web make

between $15,000 and $50,000 and do not have the money to buy office space. Three

comments noted that producers who work from home will have to rent office space if

they want to keep their home address private, or they will be required to pay for day care.

One comment states that the proposed rule would create significant bureaucratic

challenges to content producers by implementing a requirement to provide productiondate

information in more locations.

The significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the initial

regulatory flexibility analysis are as follows: One comment estimated that costs of

105

compliance for an “adult business” would be $250,000, about 25% of the business’ net

revenues.

For example, one comment remarked that his business would need to hire three

full-time staff to manage and collect information concerning 205,000 profile holders on a

personal posting Web site and compile the required age documents. The comment

estimated that the cost of the three base salaries would be $150,000 per year, which

exceeded the business’ current revenue, and that his home (office space) lacked room for

three additional staff. The comment also notes that it could not pass these costs on

because the business did not charge a membership fee, and that making copies of records

on 205,000 users would mean that it would have to purchase 136 three-drawer filing

cabinets. It contends that the space required for this many cabinets would mean that it

would have to rent external storage units for $67,200 per year, that the cost of the filing

cabinets would be $68,000, and that the total compliance cost for the business would be

$345,800. Three comments made similar comments concerning types of expenses

without specifying amounts.

Six comments claim that compliance costs for collecting records, documentation,

updating, cross-referencing, and legal services would be high. One comment states that

small businesses would incur excessive legal costs because of the “draconian sanctions”

for failure to comply with the substantive or procedural requirements of the statute and

regulations. One comment claims that the costs of compliance would present a large

obstacle to expanding a business. Three comments state generally that the proposed rule

would harm small business. Two comments point out that small businesses would need

to separate these records from others, which would be costly, and that they would incur

106

vastly increased storage costs due to the necessity of maintaining records for every

photograph of every performer. Two comments contend that the proposed rule would

place an unreasonable burden on many law-abiding businesses. One comment claims

that the vast majority of Web sites are small entities, and that listing their owner’s street

(often home) address and individual name is a substantial burden and creates a chilling

effect on constitutionally protected expression. One comment states that secondary

producers are often small businesses that could not afford the time or expense to obtain

and maintain copies of records that are best created and maintained by the primary

producer that does see the original documents. Two commenters represented that some

secondary producers will go out of business due to the proposed rule’s requirements.

One comment states that it would lose revenue from international profile holders because

he will not be able to obtain required United States documents from foreigners who post

self-nudes on the commenter’s profile Web site. Two commenters from small businesses

claimed that they could never generate the money necessary to pay for the increased

expenses associated with the proposed rule.

One comment states that the Department would greatly reduce compliance costs if

section 2257 producers could take advantage of the 2257A process under

2257A(h)(1)(A)(ii). The comment states that this would eliminate the need to produce

and maintain segregated records. Doing so, the comment states, would give these

producers the same compliance option as producers who are identical in every

permissible relevant respect. One comment argues that the Department is required under

5 U.S.C. 605(b) to conduct analyses to ensure that the regulation will not have a

“significant impact on a number of small entities.” The comment states that analyses are

107

required unless the agency can make a “no significant impact” certification. One

comment argues that the Department failed to conduct or write a proper initial regulatory

flexibility analysis.

These comments are not all specifically addressed to the proposed rule’s initial

regulatory flexibility analysis, but the content of the comments raise issues that are in

substance addressed to the analysis, and are therefore discussed in the final regulatory

flexibility analysis. The Department offers the following as a summary of its assessment

of the issues that were raised.

The Department believes that there is merit in those comments that raised cost

impact and logistical concerns relating to individuals who produce actual sexually

explicit depictions on Web sites at their homes. The Department has made changes to the

proposed rule as a result of these comments. The Department believes that the final rule

relieves three restrictions that will largely respond to the generalized comments that the

Department received concerning the cost impact of the proposed rule on small

businesses. First, the final rule does not require the keeping of hard copies, only that

such copies be produced on the demand of inspectors. This relief of a restriction will

reduce costs of storage, personnel, and related expenses that were noted in the comments.

The combined effect of these reliefs of restrictions will greatly reduce the impact of the

rule on law-abiding businesses, on expanding businesses, and on the profitability of

businesses. Second, the final rule, in a change from the proposed rule, allows hyperlinks

to appear on each webpage, rather than require that the full disclosure statement appear

on each such webpage. This relief of a restriction will reduce the cost of providing

information concerning the original production date in more locations, as one comment

108

raised. Third, the final rule permits the producer not to retain records onsite. Rather, the

required records can be retained by third-party custodians. This change, although

imposing a cost of custodian services by those entities that choose to take advantage of it,

will greatly reduce compliance costs in the categories of storage, rental space, and recordkeeping

including segregation of records, legal, and staff salaries. Additionally, this

change will relieve other burdens on small businesses enunciated by the comments, such

as release of home address information. Finally, small businesses that can fall within the

safe harbors contained in section 2257A will be relieved of record-keeping and

disclosure-statement requirements altogether as outlined above.

In addition to the reduction in burden on small businesses associated with

substantive changes to the proposed rule, the Department notes the importance of the

change in the compliance date of the final rule in alleviating burdens on small businesses.

Originally, the record-keeping obligations that the rule imposes on small businesses were

to relate to all works produced after the effective date of the statute in 2006. But the

Department has changed the final rule’s compliance date to the compliance date of the

final rules that will be issued to implement section 2257A. The Department believes that

the two statutes are interrelated because section 2257A contemplates that some entities,

including some small businesses, are to be able to comply with its terms, and that by

doing so, they would not have to comply with the regulations issued under the Act.

Because the final rule’s record-keeping requirements will never apply even for a single

day to small businesses that comply with the section 2257A certification process, the

record-keeping cost burden on such small businesses is completely eliminated.

Moreover, even those small businesses that will eventually need to comply with the final

109

rule because their conduct does not permit them to use the section 2257A certification

exemption will not have to expend resources complying with the final rule for the years

that have lapsed since the proposed rule’s compliance date.

Two of the commenters were Internet sites on which users can post profiles who

claim that the rule would adversely affect their business operations. The Department

does not believe that these comments reflected the effect of either the proposed rule or

the final rule on their businesses. A profile site is not normally a producer. The

individuals who post depictions of lascivious exhibition on those sites are producers. It is

the latter, not the former, assuming that the Web site does not act as a producer, who are

required to comply with the record-keeping and disclosure statements. Furthermore, this

final rule does not impose as large an impact on small business as some commenters

understood from the proposed rule.

The Department responds to the comment that recommends that small businesses

receive the opportunity to comply with the statutory safe harbor by stating that the

exemption referred to in the comment is available to any producer who can meet its

conditions. The Department’s ability to apply an exemption is limited by the statutory

language. However, the Department has recognized the exception that is created in

section 2257A(h)(1)(A)(ii), and in its final rule, the Department has stated that it will

ensure that the applicability of that safe harbor will operate despite the fact that no

regulation implementing it has been promulgated. As stated above, the Department has

set the compliance date for the final rule so as to allow entities who are compliant with

section 2257A(h)(1)(A)(ii) not to comply with the final rule or incur the costs of doing

so, even as an interim measure. Moreover, the Department notes that applicability of the

110

exemption does not turn on whether the entity seeking to comply with the safe harbor is a

large or small business. The exemption turns on the conduct of the entity that seeks to

utilize it, not the status of the entity itself.

With respect to the procedural requirements for a regulatory flexibility analysis,

the Department believes that this final regulatory flexibility analysis fully satisfies 5

U.S.C. 604.

As in its initial regulatory flexibility analysis, the Department continues to believe

that approximately 500,000 Web sites involving 5,000 businesses that depict actual

sexually explicit conduct are affected by the rule. As a result of being subject to the final

rule, these businesses will be required to check identification documents, record

information about production dates and age and names of performers, and affix

disclosure statements to each copy of a page that depicts actual sexually explicit conduct.

These businesses are in the film, magazine, internet, satellite, mail order, magazine,

content aggregation, and wholesaler industries. Although one commenter claims that

there are more affected businesses based on considerable exposure to the industry, the

comment provides no specific basis for that belief, nor did it offer any competing number

or evidence for such a number. One other commenter notes that there are about 1,000

firms that operate more than 100,000 adult subscription Web sites. This statement does

not affect the validity of the Department’s estimates of the number of Web sites and firms

that the rule would affect. The Department’s estimate did not estimate the number of

subscription sites or the number of firms that operate them. The commenter’s estimate of

a portion of the relevant site universe is fully consistent with the Department’s estimate

111

of the entire number of affected Web sites. No other commenters specifically took issue

with the Department’s estimate, which it continues to adhere to.

The final rule requires small businesses and other entities that produce actual

sexually explicit materials to undertake record-keeping and other compliance

requirements. They must check particular forms of identification to determine that all

performers portrayed in such depictions are of legal age, they must keep records, they

must segregate the records, and they must place disclosure statements on each page of a

Web site that contains actual sexually explicit conduct. The professional skills required

to comply are those necessary to produce the records and to place the disclosure

statement on a hyperlink on each page of a Web site.

A “small business” is defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) to be the

same as a “small business concern” under the Small Business Act (“SBA”), 15 U.S.C.

632. Under the SBA, a small business concern is one that: (1) is independently owned

and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional

definition of “small business concern” in 15 U.S.C. 632). As in its initial regulatory

flexibility analysis, the Department continues to believe that approximately 500,000 Web

sites involving 5,000 businesses that depict actual sexually explicit conduct are affected

by the rule. The Department believes that of these 5,000 businesses, 4,000 are small

businesses. It reaches this conclusion from comments that stated that the vast majority of

businesses affected by the final rule are small businesses.

112

In the proposed rule to implement revisions to section 2257, the Department

stated that, based upon the information provided to the Department through past

investigations and enforcement actions involving the affected industry, there are likely to

be a number of small businesses that are producers of visual depictions of sexually

explicit conduct as defined in the statute, as amended by the Adam Walsh Act. In the

proposed rule to implement section 2257A, the Department stated that based upon the

information available to the Department, there are likely to be a significant number of

small businesses that are producers of visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit

conduct.

Pursuant to the RFA, the Department requested affected small businesses to

estimate what these regulations will cost as a percentage of their total revenues in order to

enable the Department to ensure that small businesses are not unduly burdened.

The Department also stated that the proposed rules had no effect on State or local

governmental agencies.

In the proposed rule to implement revisions to section 2257, the Department

stated that the proposed rule modified existing requirements for private companies with

regard to visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct to ensure that minors are not used

in such depictions. One of these requirement that would specifically affect private

companies is Congress’s expansion of the coverage of the definition of “sexually explicit

conduct” to cover lascivious exhibition of the genitals.

113

In the proposed rule to implement section 2257A, the Department stated that the

proposed rule imposed requirements on private companies with respect to visual

depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct to ensure that minors are not used in

such depictions. Specifically, the Department noted, the rule imposed certain name- and

age-verification and record-keeping requirements on producers of visual depictions of

simulated sexually explicit conduct concerning the performers portrayed in those

depictions. The Department also noted that the proposed rule, however, provided an

exemption from these requirements applicable in certain circumstances.

The costs of the rule to small entities are less than the Department originally

anticipated. Thus, the conclusions of the cost estimate that was submitted to the

Department by Georgetown Economic Services reflect assumptions that no longer apply.

For instance, that report estimated average small business monthly compliance costs of

$5,000, plus up-front conversion costs and time to ensure initial compliance. The report

contends that most small businesses in the pornography industry generate insufficient

revenue to cover this level of regulatory cost imposition. However, because the

Department has listened to the comments that it has received, and believes that its

objectives can be accomplished while at the same time implementing regulatory changes

resulting in imposing a lighter burden on regulated industry, it does not believe that the

report’s conclusion, if it ever was correct, applies to the final rule.

For instance, the report assumes in its high cost estimate figures related to

formatting section 2257 records and leasing storage space. However, the final rule

changed the requirements that imposed these costs so as to dramatically reduce them.

For instance, far less storage space is needed now that the final rule, in response to

114

comments, has eliminated the hard-copy requirement. It was the proposed rule’s hardcopy

requirement that had generated the need for significant storage space. Similarly, the

cost of legal fees will be significantly less than anticipated. The report estimated that the

proposed rule would require affected businesses to hire at least one full-time employee to

maintain the database at a cost of $20 per hour. Since the final rule, responding to

various comments concerning the need to hire employees and the difficulties that this

requirement posed for part-time operators and for operations that were run out of the

home, has permitted records to be stored in offsite, third-party locations, businesses will

not need to incur the cost of hiring full-time individuals to maintain only their own

records. And it bears repeating that the cost estimate’s figures for online dating sites

misapprehend the nature of both the proposed and final rules. The operator of such a site

incurs no obligations under either rule if it simply operates as a location where users post

lascivious exhibitions; it is the individual producer who posts such material on the Web

site who must comply with the regulatory provisions.

The Department took numerous steps to minimize the economic impact on small

entities consistent with the objectives of the Act. As noted above, precisely to minimize

the concerns of commenters that significant compliance costs would be incurred by small

businesses if the proposed rule were promulgated without change as a final rule, the

Department adopted three significant substantive changes to that proposed rule: (1)

elimination of a “hard copy” requirement for record-keeping; (2) allowing third parties to

be custodians of the records; and (3) allowing the disclosure statement to appear as a

115

hyperlink, rather than in full, on each page. The Department also changed the

compliance date. These changes will reduce staffing requirements, the need to rent or

purchase filing cabinets, the cost of modifying existing images, and other small business

compliance costs that commenters have raised. Although some of the general comments

that the Department received were rejected based on policy concerns, few of the

comments submitted on the economic impact of the rule on small business were rejected

for policy reasons. Such comments were either adopted to reduce the restrictions on

small businesses where the Act permitted or, in almost all circumstances, were rejected

because the Act did not legally permit the Department to adopt them.

Section 2257(a) requires that whoever produces matter that contains actual

sexually explicit conduct “create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining

to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.” This requirement prevents the

Department from modifying the proposed rule to exempt secondary producers or small

businesses as a class. Moreover, each person with this obligation must ascertain by

examining identification documents the name and date of birth of each performer who is

visually depicted in sexually explicit conduct. And each must also ascertain other names

of the performer. Subsection (c) requires that the records be maintained under the terms

of regulations promulgated by the Attorney General and that they be made available at all

reasonable times for inspection. These provisions impose burdens on small and other

businesses that are not reducible to insignificance. Similarly, subsection (e) requires that

all covered entities affix to every copy of sexually explicit material a statement indicating

where the mandated records are kept. Those records are to conform to standards issued

by the Attorney General. And section 2257A(h) contains a specific safe harbor

116

certification process that allows some entities to avoid compliance with these

requirements.

The Department, however, may not expand the category of entities that fall within

that subsection’s parameters beyond those who meet the statutory conditions. Nor may

the Department exempt secondary producers from record-keeping and other compliance

requirements that the Act mandates. Therefore, the Department accepted alternatives to

the proposed rule that effectuated the statutory objectives while reducing the compliance

burdens of small businesses, but rejected those alternatives that were inconsistent with

the statute and its purposes.

One proposed reduction in compliance costs for small businesses that was

rejected on policy grounds was the request to end the segregation-of-records requirement

for section 2257 records. Because the Attorney General must inspect these records, the

Department believes that a lesser imposition will occur on those subject to inspection if

the requisite records are kept separately. The Attorney General will not then need to

review all of a producer’s records in search of section 2257 records, nor will the small

business need to disrupt its business for the length of time for all of its records to be

inspected. Therefore, the Department believes that its position on this point will not

impose substantial cost on small business. Further, it believes that it has drafted the final

rule to take into account the legitimate cost concerns of small businesses to the proposed

rule wherever possible. The Department is unaware of any other federal rules that may

duplicate or conflict with the proposed rule, and no commenter has brought any such rule

to its attention.

Executive Order 12866

117

This final rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with section 1(b) of

Executive Order 12866 (Principles of Regulation). The Department has determined that

this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Accordingly this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

The benefit of the rule is that children will be better protected from exploitation in

the production of visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct by ensuring that only those

who are at least 18 years of age perform in such depictions. The costs to the industry

include slightly higher record-keeping costs.

Executive Order 13132

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with

Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Executive Order 12988

This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of

Executive Order 12988.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments,

in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more, in any one year, and it

will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were

deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

Proposed Rule on Revisions to Section 2257

At the time of the proposed rule the Department stated that the proposed rule was

not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, codified at 5 U.S.C. 804. 72 FR at 38037. The Department

determined that the proposed rule would not result in an annual effect in the economy of

$100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects

on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of

United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic

and export markets.

One comment disputes the Department’s view that the proposed rule would not

cost the economy more than $100,000,000. According to this comment, software support

and legal advice costs “will be substantial and probably incalculable.” It claims that

secondary producers will need to employ a records custodian at least 20 hour per week

and that doing so for the 5,000 businesses that the Department estimates will be affected

would cost $30,000 each, for a total cost of more than $100,000,000. One comment cited

a poll of businesses asking them what they expected the cost of compliance with the

proposed rule would be and determined an average cost of more than $210,000 per

business. The comment asks that the proposed rule be reviewed and promulgated in

accordance with requirements pertaining to rules that impose a greater than $100,000,000

impact on the economy. The Department received a comment containing a long technical

cost estimate that had been prepared by an entity other than the commenter that posited

that compliance costs associated with the proposed rule would be significant.

119

The Department does not adopt these comments. First, as outlining the substance

of the comments in the notice demonstrates, not all commenters have accurately

understood the proposed rule. In each instance, those commenters overstate the burden

of the proposed rule upon them. That overstatement would necessarily cause such

entities who participated in a poll to overestimate the compliance costs they would incur

as a result of the rule. Second, the comments on the proposed rule by affected entities

were entirely unfavorable. These entities would have every reason to overstate their

compliance costs, and there is reason to believe that this has occurred. The Department

questions the salary estimates that were offered for hiring staff to keep records, for

instance. Similarly, one commenter states that compliance costs per small business

would amount to $30,000 and another that the cost would be more than $200,000. This

chasm in the estimates raises serious questions concerning the accuracy of the estimates

and the methodology that produced them.

Moreover, whatever validity these estimates may have had with respect to the

proposed rule, the decreased compliance costs due to removing restrictions as contained

in the final rule reduces the accuracy of the submitted estimates significantly. Although a

business that produces depictions of lascivious exhibition will be required to keep

records, because such a business could use a third-party custodian that would benefit

from economies of scale, because hard copies would not have to be kept, and because the

disclosure statement requirements have been significantly eased, such a business would

avoid significant amounts of compliance costs for such categories as legal, storage, and

staffing costs. There is no reason to believe that the final rule would impose

$100,000,000 in costs on the economy. Many of the entities covered by this final rule

120

already produce actual sexually explicit conduct as defined under the narrower existing

rule, which imposes greater costs on such entities than those associated with this final

rule; hence, they will face only negligible additional costs.

Because the cost estimates are based on assumptions regarding the proposed rule

that were changed for the final rule, its conclusions that “most web-based businesses will

exit from the industry” and that other types of businesses “will either shut down or move

their businesses to another country” are not valid. The Department has adopted the

legitimate concerns of legitimate pornographic small businesses, and has changed the

final rule in ways that significantly reduce the costs of the regulations on operations, and

that will result in few if any business failures on the part of entities that wish to comply

with the laws against producing child pornography.

In addition, the Department believes that the best estimate of cost of compliance

per affected small business is in actuality far less than what commenters have submitted.

The Department is aware of the existence of businesses that provide section 2257

services to regulated entities to ensure satisfaction of the requirements of the 2005 final

rule, and it therefore fully expects that such entrepreneurial activity will also provide

compliance services with respect to this final rule. Various Web sites provide model

releases, software, technical support, installation, assistance with data, and additional

hardware such as scanners. For example, one service provides tracking of content,

performers, identification, and other section 2257 compliance information for a cost of

$8,000 to the producer. Another Web site offers similar services with respect to

performer data collection, creation of digitized images, indexing, cross-referencing,

record-creation, offsite maintenance of records, release documents, reports, correction of

121

record discrepancies, generation of documents for vendors and distributors, storage of

scanned releases and compliance statements, and storage of names and aliases, for an

initial cost of $1,500 plus $60 per month for online record access and stored performer

records.

The Department also expects that since the final rule allows third parties to hold

records of small businesses, even apart from the services now being offered, some of

which include offsite record maintenance, a third-party custodian industry will exist to

support regulated small businesses at reasonable costs, should a small business wish to

outsource only those elements of its compliance costs with the final rule.

One comment states that many of the entities regulated by the final rule would be

considered small businesses, in that their revenue would be less than $27,000,000, or if

secondary producers, $23,000,000, or $13,500,000, or $6,500,000, depending on their

respective operations; however, the comment provided no average revenue per small

business. In any event, averages in the context of the rule could diverge widely from

medians. Suffice it to say, given that the comment states that the adult pornography

business generates $12 billion in revenues, even a small business with revenues

considerably less than the smallest category of small business—$6,500,000—would not

find to be overly burdensome compliance costs ranging from (at the low end) $1,500 plus

$60 per month to (at the high end) $8000.

One comment argues that SBREFA requires agencies to consider alternatives that

fit federal regulatory initiatives to the scope and scale of small entities. It states that

agencies must consider the regulatory impact of their rules on small businesses, and

analyze alternatives that minimize effects on small businesses. The Department adopts

122

this comment, and as noted elsewhere in this notice, has made multiple changes to the

proposed rule that demonstrate consideration of alternatives that would reduce the impact

of the rule on small businesses, and has adopted several proposals that commenters have

asked the Department to accept where the statutory language permitted it to do so.

One comment characterizes the compliance costs of the proposed rule as

burdensome with respect to staffing, software development, updating and maintenance,

and institution of new compliance procedures. The Department has addressed this

comment in part by adopting the cost-saving measures described earlier in this preamble:

reducing the staffing and computer burdens of the final rule by allowing third-party

custodians to keep records, by eliminating the hard copy requirement of the proposed

rule, and by permitting the disclosure statement to appear on each page by hyperlink text.

Five comments state that the proposed rule would force small companies to shut

down. These five comments also maintained that surviving firms would face a much

harder time in continuing operations. Yet another comment posited that the remaining

firms would produce less output as a result of the proposed rule. One comment raised

concerns that affiliate sites that contain photographs will not be able to survive the cost of

formatting records, maintaining a database, and leasing space, and may go out of business

as a result. One other comment related that dating sites that displayed about 8,000,000

profiles with graphic content would need to make photo records at 3 minutes per record,

with a staffer paid $20 per hour to create a picture for every file. That comment cited a

National Research Council report that compliance with the regulations would be likely to

increase expenses and drive out some of the small enterprises.

123

The Department does not adopt these comments. First, as stated above, the

Department does not believe that the final rule will cause the outcomes that the comments

predicted, since the final rule takes into account so many of the concerns of small

businesses. Also, as stated above, businesses such as dating services that in fact do not

produce depictions of sexually explicit conduct, are not the entities that are responsible

for record-keeping and disclosure statements. Those responsibilities in those

circumstances would fall upon the individuals who post graphic content on the site. To

the extent that the final regulation does impose costs on small businesses that could affect

their operations, the Department believes that these costs are the irreducible minimum

costs that Congress imposed in the Act as a consequence of increasing the likelihood that

underage depictions would not be produced or that demand for and distribution of such

depictions would not be increased because of the existence of secondary producers who

wittingly or unwittingly made them available.

In addition, the Department does not believe that the National Research Council’s

support for the commenter’s position. First, the report is now six years old and was

issued before the current regulations were published. Second, the report did not quantify

the purported effect of regulations on small businesses that would occur as a result of

even the prior rules, much less this rule. Moreover, at page 213, the report notes that

“[m]ore active enforcement” of the record-keeping requirements “may better protect

minors from participation in the creation of child pornography.” To the extent that the

comment relies on the report to claim that the effect of the rule might be to drive some

small operators out of business, the Department agrees, but that report makes that

124

statement only with respect to businesses who do not comply with their statutory

obligations.

Many comments pertained to the proposed rule’s effect on social networking

sites. These comments claim that the proposed rule would harm adult social networking

sites because of record-keeping requirements on users, a decline in the number of users,

and their unwillingness to provide the required information because of fear of

discrimination, because their names would be posted. Additionally, they state that the

effect of the proposed rule could be the elimination of the social networking site industry,

which the comments described as a legal and valuable way for adults to meet one

another.

The Department does not adopt these comments. Although the rule would require

users who chose to display actual sexually explicit conduct on adult social networking

sites to keep records, the rule is inapplicable to social network site operators. The rule

cannot exempt users from the record-keeping requirements the Act imposes. The

Department has minimized these effects by reducing the costs of compliance. Moreover,

it has eliminated any concerns, whether or not justified, that such users would face

discrimination by allowing third-party custodians to maintain the records. The user’s

disclosure statement that is required to appear on the Web site would therefore not need

to identify any name or address of the user, but merely the location of the third party that

holds the records.

Two comments claim that secondary producers’ income would decline as a result

of having to comply with the rule. According to these commenters, out of fear of relying

on primary producers’ records, rather than reproducing depictions provided by primary

125

producers, they would instead use text links to primary producers’ sites. The Department

does not adopt these comments. As a result of the final rule, secondary producers can

trust that primary producers complied with section 2257 and did not employ underage

performers.

Four comments state that the proposed rule would not affect foreign webmasters,

and the federal government would have to spend funds to determine which businesses

were or were not foreign. These comments also contend that harm to domestic business

would occur vis-a-vis foreign businesses as perhaps more production would occur

offshore, which would circumvent the safeguards. One comment claims that the rule

would worsen the balance of payments because Americans will have to obtain their

pornography from foreign sources. One comment states that the regulation would create

an unfair trade barrier (against the United States) because offshore personal page Web

sites will be more attractive for American citizens who wish to self-post nude content,

and all users will shift their profiles to offshore sites.

The Department does not adopt these comments. The rule can apply only to

circumstances to which the Act applies. Congress has limited authority to apply

American criminal prohibitions against entities that operate only in foreign countries, and

the Department can only issue regulations implementing those prohibitions that have the

same reach. To the extent that production of depictions of actual sexually explicit

conduct shifts offshore as a result of record-keeping requirements generally, that is the

unavoidable effect of the Act. The Department has minimized burdens on small business

to minimize the effect of the rule on the situation these comments raise. To the extent

that the rule reduces production of child pornography in the United States, that is the

126

desired goal of both the Act and the rule. With respect to balance of payments,

Americans who seek pornography will have access to numerous domestic sources of

pornography under the rule, even if some production moved offshore. The comment

makes no showing that the rule will cause the price of access to domestic pornography to

rise compared to foreign pornography to a level that would lead pornography-seeking

Americans to shift their purchases from domestic to imported product.

One commenter notes that the EU Privacy Directive means that some primary

producers will only obtain affidavits that relate to people under 18 and that state where

the records are located. Therefore, American businesses could not obtain needed records,

while foreign competitors do not need to worry about the need to comply or experience

compliance costs.

The Department does not adopt this comment. The Act requires that records

exceeding those allowed in the EU Privacy Directive be kept. Foreign competitors will

operate under different rules to the extent of US and EU authority. The Department is

unable to change that fact.

Proposed Rule to Implement Section 2257A

As stated in the proposed rule, the Department is unable to estimate with any

precision the number of entities producing visual depictions of simulated sexually

explicit conduct. Because the issue of the number of entities producing visual depictions

of simulated sexually explicit conduct is a new issue that has arisen precisely because of

the enactment of section 2257A, there does not appear to be much available information

concerning the number of entities producing such material. As a partial indication,

according to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2002 there were 11,163 establishments engaged

127

in motion picture and video production in the United States. Based on a rough estimation

that 10% were engaged in the production of visual depictions of simulated sexually

explicit conduct, the Department estimated that approximately 1,116 motion picture and

video producing establishments would be covered. The underlying statute provides an

exemption from these requirements applicable in certain circumstances, and it requires

producers to submit certifications to qualify for this exemption. The Department has no

information concerning the number of otherwise covered entities that would qualify for

this statutory exemption, nor is it able to estimate this number. For entities that qualify

for the statutory exemption, however, the Department estimated that it would take less

than 20 hours per year, at an estimated cost of less than $25.00 per hour, to prepare the

biennial certification required for the statutory exemption. The Department’s burdenhour

estimate for preparing the biennial certification required for the statutory exemption

was based on the proposed rule’s requirements for such certification, which have been

drastically curtailed and simplified in the final rule. The proposed rule would have

required that the certification take the form of a letter indicating that the producer

regularly and in the normal course of business collects and maintains individually

identifiable information regarding all performers employed by that person, and would

have required a list of the titles, names, or other identifying information of visual

depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct or lascivious exhibition produced since

the last certification, as well as a list of the titles, names, or other identifying information

of visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct or lascivious exhibition that

include non-employee performers. The Department assumed that the certification’s main

burden would have been to require producers to maintain a list of the visual depictions

128

produced during the certification period, and that the majority of the work to prepare the

certification would be performed by administrative staff. The Department further

estimated that 90% of such entities would qualify for the exemption.

The Department received three comments contesting the Department’s estimates

for preparing the certification contemplated by the proposed rule. One comment states

that the Department’s estimation that preparing the certification would require less than

20 hours a year of administrative staff time at a cost of less than $25 per hour “grossly

understates the burden at issue” because the determination as to whether given depictions

constituted lascivious exhibition or simulated sexually explicit conduct, a prerequisite to

preparing the lists contemplated by the proposed rule, would require attorneys to review

the depictions at a cost far higher than $25 per hour, and thousands of hours of material

would have to be reviewed. The comment thus concludes that “the regulations impose

not a trivial burden, but a very substantial one that will surely chill legitimate expression

by producers anxious to avoid criminal sanctions.”

The second comment states flatly that the Department’s estimate that the

certification contemplated by the proposed rule would require less than 20 hours per year

to prepare, at an estimated cost of less than $25 per hour “has no basis in reality” because

some producers will have hundreds or even thousands of depictions, and also because the

producers will have certain obligations with respect to foreign-produced materials such as

seeking to determine if foreign producers comply with the requirements of United States

law or taking reasonable steps to assure that foreign materials do not depict minors in

depictions of lascivious exhibition or simulated sexually explicit conduct. This comment

also explaines that the determination as to whether depictions constitute lascivious

129

exhibition or simulated sexually explicit conduct will have to made with the assistance of

counsel, which will entail increased costs.

The third comment bluntly states that the Department’s “assumptions regarding

the time and cost of compliance with the proposed [certification] regime . . . are

unsupported and fallacious.” The comment states that Department’s citation to the

11,163 producers in 2002, above, “represented only ‘primary producers’” and that “there

have long been many, many times that many websites featuring sexually explicit

materials operating from the United States.” This comment also states that the

Department’s estimation that 10% of the 11,163 producers “disseminate simulated

sexually explicit materials or material with lascivious exhibition . . . cannot be justified

and seems unrealistic to us.” Moreover, the comment states that “since domestic

‘secondary producers’ are substantially dependent upon foreign primary producers,

limiting the number of producers to those counted by the Census Bureau excludes

thousands more primary producers” and “including ‘secondary producers’ into the

Department’s numbers multiplies the scope by magnitudes.” The comment concludes

that “[a]ssuming a more realistic number of several million adult websites, even keeping

the unjustified and unjustifiable ten percent [that produce depictions of lascivious

exhibition or simulated sexually explicit conduct], the Department has undercounted the

number of entities affected by a factor of one hundred or more” and that “rather than the

1100 producers claimed by the Department, there are likely several hundred thousand.”

The Department recognizes the difficulty of estimating the burden of preparing

the certification contemplated by the proposed rule and the difficulty of estimating the

number of producers of depictions of lascivious exhibition and simulated sexually

130

explicit conduct. Accordingly, the Department appreciates the comments that responded

to the Department’s request for input on these issues.

With respect to the burden of preparing the certification required by the final rule,

the Department believes that it would be minimal compared to the burden of preparing

the certification contemplated by the proposed rule. The certification in the final rule

does not require producers to identify which of their materials constitute depictions of

lascivious exhibition or simulated sexually explicit conduct, nor does it require producers

to keep records concerning the depictions produced that include non-employee

performers, the depictions produced since the last certification, the foreign-produced

depictions that the certifier took reasonable steps to confirm did not depict minors, or a

certification that a primary producer either collects and maintains the records required by

sections 2257 and 2257A or has itself made the requisite certification to the Attorney

General. The final rule now only requires that the producer state the basis under which it

qualifies for the certification regime, using the brief certification statement contained in

§ 75.9(c)(2) of the final rule. For foreign-produced materials, a producer would use

either the certification or alternate certification contained in § 75.9(c)(3) of the final rule.

The Department thus believes that the certification would impose a far smaller burden

that that contemplated by the proposed rule.

In cases other than those involving foreign-produced material, for which the

alternate certification is necessary, the Department estimates the certification would

require less than two hours to complete. A further reduction in the burden as compared

to the certification contemplated by the proposed rule is that the final rule only requires

that the certification be submitted once and amended only as needed, rather than

131

requiring that a certification be submitted every two years. Estimating that the

certification is prepared by an administrative staffer at a cost of $25 per hour, the

certification should cost a producer no more than $50.

In cases involving foreign-produced material where the alternate certification

contained in § 75.9(c)(3) of the final rule is necessary, a producer would have to take

“reasonable steps to confirm” that depictions do not depict minors. The certification in

the final rule would impose a reduced burden in this circumstance as well, as the final

rule clarifies that such “reasonable steps” can include simply reviewing the depictions or

relying on a representation or warranty made by the foreign producer of these materials.

In cases where the foreign producer makes such a representation or warranty, the

Department estimates little or no additional cost in preparing the certification. In cases

where the producer is required to review the materials, the Department believes that U.S.

producers for sound business reasons already review the materials they obtain from

foreign producers, and the review contemplated by the certification would involve little

or no additional cost. In particular, the Department does not believe this review would be

required to be conducted by an attorney, as a good-faith belief that the material does not

depict minors would be sufficient to meet the certification’s standard.

Accordingly, even assuming that the Department understated the number of

producers by a factor of one hundred as stated by one comment cited above, resulting in

an estimate of roughly 100,000 producers in the United States, and further estimating that

90% of these producers qualify for the exemption, the total cost of preparing the

certification required for the statutory exemption would be approximately $4.5 million

(100,000 producers times 90% times $50 each). Given that a study submitted as a

132

comment to the proposed rule implementing section 2257 (and submitted as an

attachment to a comment on the proposed rule implementing section 2257A) estimated

that the adult industry had revenues of $12.9 billion in 2006 ($9.2 billion from sectors

including: video sales and rentals, the Internet, magazines, cable/satellite/hotel, and

mobile), the Department believes the $4.5 million estimated cost of preparing the

certification is not excessive.

In the proposed rule, the Department estimated that 3,000,000 visual depictions of

simulated sexually explicit conduct are created each year and that it requires 6 minutes to

complete the record-keeping requirement for each depiction, the record-keeping

requirements would impose a burden of 300,000 hours. Based on the Department’s

estimation that producers of 90% of these depictions would qualify for the statutory

exemption from these requirements, the proposed rule estimated that the requirements

would only impose a burden of 30,000 hours. The Department further estimated that the

record-keeping requirements would cost $6.00 per hour to complete and $0.05 for each

image of a verifiable form of identification.

The Department received two comments on its estimate for collecting the required

records for those producers that do not qualify for the statutory exemption. One

comment states that it was “ludicrous” for the Department to estimate that it would only

take six minutes to complete the record-keeping requirement for each depiction,

estimating four performers in each depiction, often foreign records for each performer,

and the need to cross-reference the records to the performance. The comment states that

“there is no possibility that the process could take only six minutes, even for one

133

performer.” The other comment states that it is “extraordinarily unlikely that . . . recordkeeping

associated with certification would ‘cost $6.00 per hour to complete.’”

The Department notes, however, that a study submitted as a comment to the

proposed rule implementing section 2257 (and submitted as an attachment to a comment

on the proposed rule implementing section 2257A) “assume[d], based on industry

interviews, that . . . [i]t takes at least three minutes to complete a Section 2257 file for a

photograph . . . [and] [t]he market rate in California for a worker who can complete a

Section 2257 file without error quickly is $20 per hour, including all benefits.” The

Department thus declines to accept the comment that a six-minute-per-depiction estimate

is unrealistic, but accepts the comment that its $6 per hour estimate for these recordkeeping

tasks understates the costs. Given the nature of the work and the availability of

software to assist in the record-keeping, it seems unlikely that the associated tasks would

require skilled labor. Even providing roughly 130% of the federal minimum wage for

work that would appear to be essentially data entry would yield only $10 per hour.

Therefore, the Department rejects the view that $20 per hour is an accurate estimate, but

adopts $10 as more reasonable.

No commenter disputed the Department’s 3,000,000 images figure. Therefore,

the Department continues to estimate that 3,000,000 visual depictions potentially covered

by the statutory exemption are created each year. Applying its estimation that it takes 6

minutes to complete the record-keeping requirement for each depiction, the Department

therefore continues to calculate that the record-keeping requirements would impose a

burden of 300,000 hours. Although one commenter alleged that the Department

understated the number of producers by 100 to 1, no commenter disputed that 90% of

134

those producers would qualify for the statutory exemption. Hence, based on the

Department’s continued estimation that producers of 90% of the 3,000,000 depictions

would qualify for the statutory exemption from these requirements, the final rule

continues to estimate that the requirements would only impose a burden of 30,000 hours.

The Department now estimates, however, that the record-keeping requirements would

cost $10.00 per hour to complete. In an abundance of caution, to account for the costs of

software noted above, the Department now estimates that each image would cost $.10 to

process (i.e., twice the original estimate). Furthermore, the Department, based on the

comment claiming underestimation of the number of primary and secondary producers by

100 to 1, adopts 100,000 as the total number of affected producers. Accordingly, the

Department now estimates that the total annual cost for the 10% of entities (i.e., 10,000)

not qualifying for the statutory exemption would be $330,000 (30,000 hours times $10

per hour, plus $.10 times 300,000 images). Thus, the average cost to an individual small

business producer who did not qualify for the exemption would be $33.00 per year

($330,000 divided by 10,000). Even at the commenter’s suggested $20, the cost per

small business would be $66.00 per year. As mentioned above, even a small business in

the lowest revenue level would find this cost to be manageable.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule modifies existing requirements to conform to newly enacted

legislation. It contains a revised information collection that satisfies the requirements of

existing regulations to clarify the means of maintaining and organizing the required

documents. This information collection will be submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget for regular approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of

135

1995. In the proposed rule, the Department asked for public comment on four issues: (1)

Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical

utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection

of information, including the validity of the methodology and estimations used; (3) how

to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) how

to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond,

including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other

permitting electronic submission of responses). The Department estimated that there are

500,000 Web sites and at least 200 producers of DVDs, videos, and other images

containing visual depictions of actually explicit conduct (as defined by the revised section

2257), constituting 5000 businesses, and invited comments on these estimates. The

Department also invited comments on its estimates that the proposed rule implementing

section 2257 applied to 2,000,000 depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct

(including the visual depictions of lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a

person not covered by the regulation), that each depiction would generate 6 minutes to

complete its associated record-keeping, and that the record-keeping requirements would

impose a burden of 200,000 hours.

Two comments state that the entire record-shifting burden arises from the

requirement that records be maintained at the producer’s own place of business. If third

parties were custodians, and their location were properly disclosed, then both primary and

secondary producers could rely on the same third-party custodian using the same

136

disclosure statement. This would minimize the record-keeping burdens by concentrating

them on third parties who were willing and able to receive the information and then

organize, maintain, and make the information available for inspection. The comments

posit that there may be interest in the regulated industry to assist in having third-party

professional record-keepers trained and compliant in the record-keeping. These third

parties would perform cross-reference and maintenance, and allow records to be available

for forty hours per week, dramatically easing the overall burdens. According to the

comments, the secondary producer could then fulfill its record-keeping obligations by

merely referring to the location of the records created by the primary producer.

The Department adopts the comments in part. As stated above, the Department

believes that its objectives can be accomplished and the burden reduced on small

business by allowing producers to use third-party custodians to store their records. The

final rule reflects this change from the proposed rule. The Department believes, however,

as stated above, that a secondary producer who does not actually see copies of

identification cards that the primary producer uses to prove that the performer was at least

18 years old as of the date of original production may take an unnecessary risk of

distributing child pornography.

One comment remarked that some producers of actual sexually explicit conduct

exist only virtually and that their records should therefore be permitted to be created only

virtually. The Department accepts this comment in part. Regardless of the nature of the

entity that produces actual sexually explicit conduct, the final rule permits records to be

kept in electronic form.

137

One comment states that subjecting those who exclusively produce depictions

involving lascivious exhibitions to record-keeping as of July 2006 would create a

paperwork burden not intended by Congress. The comment expressed the view that

Congress intended to reduce these entities’ paperwork by creating a certification process.

As stated above, the Department is delaying the imposition of the record-keeping

requirements for entities whose activities enable them to confirm to the certification safe

harbor until such time as the Department issues the final rule that implements section

2257A.

One comment notes the burden imposed by having each webpage contain a

substantial amount of regulatory information to enable the producer to display otherwise

constitutionally protected expression without criminal penalties, which it contends

violates free expression. The Department adopts this comment in part. The final rule’s

display requirements will not require substantial regulatory information, but will permit

hyperlinks. The Department does not accept the remainder of the comment. Under the

terms of the final rule, producers of constitutionally protected depictions of actual

sexually explicit conduct will be fully able to create such images without risk of criminal

penalties so long as they maintain records and affix a disclosure statement to each page

that displays such an image. Without such compliance, there is no guarantee that the

depiction is in fact constitutionally protected expression. In fact, experience

demonstrates that there is too great a likelihood that a child will have been victimized by

such a depiction, and that such a depiction may be used to victimize others.

Four comments state that compliance with the proposed rule is expensive,

invasive, and burdensome. One comment notes that the proposed rule placed a burden on

138

a person who displayed depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct to keep and

distribute information to strangers about the performers. The Department adopts these

comments in part. Although some of the requirements of the Adam Walsh Act will result

in additional expenses for businesses, the Department has reduced those burdens in the

final rule. It has eliminated the hard copy requirement, permitted hyperlinks rather than

complete disclosure statements on each webpage, and permitted producers to place

required records in the hands of third-party custodians. Primary producers must share

information on performers with secondary producers, but that is a requirement of the Act.

Two comments state that hard copy is not required and is very expensive. One

comment says that hard copy is counter to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction

Act requirement that agencies minimize the burden of information collections through

appropriate electronic of other information technology. One comment notes that some

Web sites have many thousands of pages of actual sexually explicit material, and it

argues that there is no reason for a hard copy. Inexpensive scanners, it maintains, can

produce digital depictions at a resolution such as 300 dots per inch that can eliminate the

need to read a copy of the identification document, and that hard copies may be less clear

for inspectors. The Department accepts these comments, without necessarily agreeing

with the characterization of the proposed rule under the PRA and, as stated, will permit

the required records to be stored electronically.

One comment notes that the proposed rule is burdensome given its requirements

concerning the date of original production, which would mandate overhauling each and

every disclosure on a Web site after identifying such a date for those images. The

Department adopts this comment. Identification of the original date of production is

139

crucial to the inspection process, and the records must indicate that date; however, it is

not necessary to have on the disclosure statement. Accordingly, the final rule eliminates

§ 75.6(B)(2).

Four comments state that the proposed rule would achieve none of its stated goals,

either because people will lie about their age or produce fake identification documents or

because illicit entities would not keep records. Thirty-five comments claims that the rule

would do little to protect minors or curb child pornography.

The Department does not adopt these comments. People who lie about their age

must still produce identification cards, or the producers will be criminally liable for

depicting them. The Department cannot guarantee that some individuals will not provide

fake documents, but such individuals risk incurring criminal penalties, and the

Department believes that the existence of these penalties will persuade many people who

would be tempted to use fake documentation to avoid doing so. Further, the Department

believes the rule will achieve its objective of implementing the policies of the Act,

whether or not it is completely successful in eradicating the production of all child

pornography.

On a related issue, one comment notes that false identification cards can appear

authentic and lead to the production of many depictions and subsequent republications of

the performer’s image. However, since the rule requires that a copy of each image must

be kept in the records of each of the many producers, the comment asks what producers

are to do once the fraud is revealed. It states that producers will destroy their images

when the fraud is revealed, but asks if the rule permits the destruction of the records, and

140

if not, asks how custodians would be protected against state laws that criminalize even

the private possession of child pornography.

The Department responds to this comment by stating that records of the

production of such depictions must be retained even after the fraud is discovered. The

Department would need to be able to inspect the identification documents that were

provided as a basis for creating the depiction.

One comment states that secondary producers cannot determine if a scanned or

faxed document was actual or altered, and could unknowingly accept false information.

The comment questions whether the producer would be shielded from prosecution if the

primary producer presents false or altered documents, and asks whether there will be a

database for the secondary producer to check whether the primary producer’s age

documents are valid, as would be the case with a passport.

The Department responds to this comment by stating that the secondary producer

must keep a copy of the relevant identification documents under the terms of the rule. So

long as the producer keeps a copy of the document that reasonably appears to conform to

the requirements of the rule, the producer will not face criminal liability. But as stated

above, the producer must keep the records even if the image turns out not to relate to a

performer of legal age. As discussed above, the Department will not establish a database

as part of this rule.

One comment states that secondary producers have no relationship with the

performers depicted in actual sexually explicit conduct, and that applying the recordkeeping

requirements to them therefore accomplishes nothing. The Department does not

adopt this comment. Unless the secondary performer keeps appropriate records, then the

141

fears that Congress expressed that secondary producers will knowingly or unknowingly

create a commercial market for child pornography may materialize.

One comment contends that the proposed rule’s requirement that information be

placed on every page will not make the required information more easily accessible to the

Department, and that it will increase compliance costs. The Department does not adopt

this comment. Placement of the required information on every page will enable the

Department to determine that any given depiction of actual sexual conduct is of a person

who is of appropriate age, and the adherence to this requirement will make that

information more accessible to the Department. Additionally, the Act requires that the

Department’s final rule impose such a requirement, and the Department notes that the

final rule will impose the minimal compliance costs associated with the Act’s

requirement by permitting hyperlinks rather than the full disclosure statement to appear

on each regulated page.

One comment concedes that the cross-referencing requirement has a

governmental purpose when an inspector needs to obtain performance records based

upon a legal name or an alias or a title of a work. However, the comment contends that

there is no basis to require cross-referencing so that an inspector can obtain an alias name

that was never used in productions and was never used as an adult, or records concerning

unknown works.

The Department does not adopt this comment. The Department would not know

(and questions whether many producers would know) that an alias was never used in

productions. If an alias had in fact been used in productions, it is vital for the Department

to be able to determine that such depictions were originally produced when the

142

performers were over 18. If an alias was never used while a performer was an adult, it

may have been used when the performer was a child. Being able to trace records when

the performer may have been a minor is of obvious significance to the Department’s

efforts to combat child exploitation.

One comment requests that the Department prepare a form analogous to an IRS

form that, if properly completed, will assure the filer that it has complied with all

statutory and regulatory reporting requirements. The form would be available for

employers to record the fact that they have examined appropriate identification

requirements before employing any individual in covered employment. The comment

believes that primary producers should not have to guess concerning the required content

of their records or to seek expensive legal advice from attorneys. The comment

recommends that the form should be one that is used to create paper records or that can

be digitally incorporated into record-keeping software for those who choose to keep the

records in digital form.

The Department does not adopt this requirement. It is not possible for the

Department to create a form that would ensure that the regulated entity has complied with

all requirements. It is the actual performance of the checking function that the recordkeeping

must document. Individualized records must be kept, rather than filling out a

form indicating merely that identity was checked. Moreover, copies of the identification

cards must be kept to prove that the performers were of age. Finally, the comment seeks

what is essentially a compliance certification procedure rather than a record-keeping

principle. Congress created a particular means by which entities may be found to be in

compliance with the rule even though the statutory record-keeping and disclosure

143

requirements are not adhered to. The Department is not free to write another alternative

method of compliance.

Two comments claim that the current regulations are more than adequate to fulfill

their purpose. The Department does not accept this comment. Congress enacted the Act

to impose additional requirements to prevent the production of child pornography

because section 2257’s pre-Act definition of “actual sexually explicit conduct” and

accompanying regulations were insufficient to achieve that objective. The Department

must therefore issue the final rule per statutory command and believes that these

additional requirements will make the production of child pornography more difficult

than under current rules.

One comment states that some sites have many thousands of images and that each

would take many kilobytes of storage and that the largest sites would need many

gigabytes of storage to comply with the rule. It claims that sites with streaming video

need to retain seven years’ worth of recorded video. According to the comment,

regardless of whether video is live or recorded, and regardless of whether copies are held

in hard form or electronically, the size and number of video files will create a significant

burden, in some cases requiring storage of gigabytes of data or thousands of videos. The

comment wonders what governmental benefits these requirements will produce.

The Department does not adopt this comment. As to live performances, the

proposed rule specifically provides, “For any performer in a depiction performed live on

the Internet, the records shall include a copy of the depiction with running-time sufficient

to identify the performer in the depiction and to associate the performer with the records

needed to confirm his or her age.” 72 FR at 38036. This will significantly reduce the

144

storage costs the commenter discusses. As to recorded performances, the Department

does not accept the alleged burdensome nature of the storage costs. The district court in

Free Speech Coalition v. Gonzales favorably cited the Department’s expert witness to the

effect that “large numbers of depictions can be electronically stored by purchasing hard

Several commenters address the time period for the retention of records. One

comment views the seven-year record retention requirement as excessive, noting that at

three inspections per year, the producer would face 20 or 21 inspection cycles. The

comment believes that there is no reason why that many inspections would be needed for

a particular record and that the Department would learn the actual age of a depicted

performer before so many inspections were carried out. The comment asks that the final

rule make clear that the records of a depiction can be disposed of seven years after a

depiction’s creation, and that a producer’s records concerning a performer can be

disposed of seven years after the performer is last depicted by the producer.

One comment points out that the required time for keeping records can be

seventeen years. If a corporation leaves the adult entertainment business just before the

seven-year record-keeping requirement, it must keep the records for an additional five

years. And if the company goes out of business altogether, then the individual custodian

must keep the records for another five years. The comment asks that the final rule should

say that the operative period is the shortest of whichever of these three contingencies

occurs first.

One comment notes that a secondary producer must keep the relevant record for

seven years after the depiction was reproduced, perhaps beginning seven years after the

145

depiction was produced. The comment points out that the information in the records

properly relates to the initial production and not the reproduction. It posits that there is

no reason to restart the clock for each republication. The comment also expresses

concern that requiring the records to be maintained as long as the depiction is in

circulation would be so cumulatively burdensome as to unconstitutionally harm

expression.

One comment asks that no one be required to keep records of a particular

depiction more than seven years after it was initially created. A secondary producer may

want to reproduce a depiction eight years after it was made, but the primary producer

may have eliminated the records. The comment asks whether the secondary producer can

reproduce without the records, or its further reproduction is restricted at the cost of the

constitutional rights of the primary producer who is also now quite lawfully without the

records.

The Department declines to adopt these comments. Concerns about the retention

period for records were addressed in the final rule published in 2005. At that time, the

Department stated, “The regulation provides for retention of records for seven years from

production or last amendment and five years from cessation of production by a business

or dissolution of the company. The Department does not believe that these limits are

unreasonable. The only way to satisfy the commenters’ objection that the periods of time

can multiply would be to impose a blanket short period of time no matter what changes to

the records were made. Such a change would frustrate the ability to ensure that records

were maintained up-to-date and prevent inspectors from examining older records to

determine if a violation had been committed. In addition, the time periods, contrary to the

146

case, the D.C. Circuit held that part 75 could not require records to be maintained for as

long as the producer remained in business and allowed a five-year retention period

‘[p]ending its replacement by a provision more rationally tailored to actual law

enforcement needs.’ 33 F.3d at 91. The Department has determined that the seven-year

period is reasonable, thus satisfying the court’s directive. The production of child

pornography statute of limitations was increased in the PROTECT Act from five years to

the life of the child, and the increase contained in the regulation seeks to comport with

that extended statute of limitations. Finally, the Department wishes to clarify that the

statute requires that each time a producer publishes a depiction, he must have records

proving that the performers are adults. Thus, if a producer purges his or her records after

the retention period but continues to use a picture for publication, the producer would be

deemed in violation of the statute for not maintaining records that the person depicted

was an adult. Records are required for every iteration of an image in every instance of

publication.” 70 FR at 29614.

One comment believes that the proposed rule’s record-keeping requirements

impose a heavy burden. It argues that copies of the full set of required records must

follow any depiction to any secondary producer who assists in disseminating the

constitutionally protected expression, which will restrict such dissemination.

The Department does not adopt this comment. Although a burden is imposed by

the record-keeping requirement, it is necessary that secondary producers retain copies of

records that the primary producer examined prior to producing depictions of sexually

explicit conduct. Otherwise, there is no way to determine that the depiction is in fact

147

constitutionally protected expression rather than a record of child exploitation. Since

preventing the existence of a commercial market for child pornography is a major

purpose of the Act, the Department believes that it has adopted the least-restrictive

burden for secondary producers and the Department to be sure that the performers were

of legal age on the original production date of the depiction of actual sexually explicit

conduct.

One comment points out that because a secondary producer cannot assemble

records from scratch, he should be able to receive a copy of the primary producer’s

records so long as the secondary producer also obtains, records, and maintains the

primary producer’s business address. The comment expressed a belief that the volume

and complexity of the requirements will limit the distribution of constitutionally

protected material. It complains that if a primary producer licenses some but not all of a

set of its images, it will be difficult for a secondary producer to untangle the crossreferences

so that the secondary possesses the required records (because possessing

extraneous matter subjects that individual to a five-year sentence per § 75.2(e)). The

comment anticipates that some primary producers will not want to share records

concerning identification cards because secondary producers might compete with those

primary producers if they knew where to find the performers. Moreover, if the performer

obtained an agreement from the primary producer not to use a secondary producer to

republish their depiction, then constitutionally protected expression will be frozen out of

existence.

The Department does not adopt this comment. For a secondary producer to know

that as of the original production date, the performers were of legal age, copies of the

148

records of the primary producer must be provided that demonstrate that fact. To identify

the appropriate primary producer, the secondary producer must keep records itself. The

only means of ensuring that children are not performing in the depiction is to determine

the birthdates of the performers and to keep records. The Department must have access

to these records to ensure that children are not being depicted. First Amendment rights

are not implicated if, in response to the rule, primary producers choose not to share

records because they fear that secondary producers may compete with them. Moreover,

if a performer obtains an agreement through an agent that the primary producer will not

use a secondary producer to republish a depiction, then the reason that the secondary

producer would become unable to obtain the image is through the operation of the

agreement, whether or not the Department had ever issued any regulations. The First

Amendment is not implicated under those circumstances.

One comment states that a secondary producer can satisfy the Act by requiring

only an email or a letter from the primary producer attesting to the availability of the date

of birth documentation’s availability at the primary producer’s place of business, unless

the secondary producer is also a primary producer. The Department does not adopt this

comment. A secondary producer’s reliance on an email or letter does not ensure that the

secondary producer actually retains records documenting that the performer was of legal

age as of the date of original production.

One comment notes that each Web site can contain multiple depictions, which

may have been created on different dates. Each webmaster would have to develop a

unique system of cross-referencing, coding, or identifying the production date of each

149

depiction. The comment would prefer that webmasters be permitted to identify the most

relevant date, of either production, duplication, reproduction, or reissuance of a depiction.

The Department does not adopt this comment. Apart from the lack of clarity

concerning what the most relevant date from the choices above for a particular depiction,

the Department believes that the date of original production is a critical element for the

disclosure statement that Congress has required. Confirmation of the date of birth of the

performer and of the date of original production are the two most important pieces of

information necessary to be recorded if child pornography is to be kept out of production

and commercial distribution. Knowledge of only a later date that is unrelated to the date

of original production of the image will not ensure that the performer was of legal age as

of the date that the depiction was created, the key factor determining whether a particular

depiction is child pornography or not.

Two comments oppose cross-referencing requirements because, the commenters

say, they are a means only to harass producers. The Department does not adopt this

comment. Cross-referencing requirements, as described above, are vital to determining

whether a performer under any name that the performer has used has been depicted in

actual sexually explicit conduct despite their status as a minor. Cross-referencing will

enable the Department to establish, whatever name may be used, whether a performer’s

identification card demonstrates legality of age for such productions.

Two comments suggest that the burden of segregating records in § 75.2(d) and (e)

is too stringent. One points out that if a stray 1099 form, model release, or I-9 form were

to wind up in the section 2257 records instead of the more general personnel file, then the

150

producer or custodian would face years in prison. The comment contends that there

should be a different rule for inadvertent misfiling.

The Department does not accept this comment. The segregation requirement in

fact reduces the burden that the rule imposes upon the regulated entity. Due to

segregation of records, the inspector need only review a unified set of records, without

need to search every document in the facility.

Two comments request that the final rule reduce the burden on primary producers

by not requiring that they make or receive sworn statements that all content is legal and

all models are over 18. The Department declines to adopt this comment, as it describes

the effect of neither the proposed rule nor existing regulation.

The Department received no comments challenging its estimates that 2,000,000

depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct would be generated this year, that the

associated record-keeping for each depiction would amount to 6 minutes, and that the

total related burden of compliance for this category was 200,000 hours, and it therefore

continues to adhere to these estimates. Two million depictions at a cost of $10 per hour

of record-keeping and a duplication cost of $0.10 per depiction produces a total cost of

compliance with the final section 2257 rule of $2,400,000.

The OMB Control Number pertaining to the rule is 1105-0083.

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 75

Crime, infants and children, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 75 of chapter I of title

28 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

151

Authority: 18 U.S.C. 2257, 2257A.

2. The heading of part 75 is revised to read as set forth above.

3. Amend § 75.1 by revising paragraphs (b), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(4), (d), and (e), and

by adding paragraphs (m) through (s), to read as follows:

§ 75.1 Definitions.

* * * * *

State government, or a political subdivision thereof, or a United States territory, that

bears the photograph, the name of the individual identified, and the date of birth of that

individual, and provides specific information sufficient for the issuing authority to

confirm its validity, such as a passport, Permanent Resident Card (commonly known as a

“Green Card”), or employment authorization document issued by the United States, a

driver’s license or other form of identification issued by a State or the District of

Columbia; or a foreign government-issued equivalent of any of the documents listed

above when the person who is the subject of the picture identification card is a non-U.S.

citizen located outside the United States at the time of original production and the

producer maintaining the required records, whether a U.S. citizen or non-U.S. citizen, is

152

located outside the United States on the original production date. The picture

identification card must be valid as of the original production date.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

or creates a digitally- or computer-manipulated image, a digital image, or a picture of, or

who digitizes an image of, a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual

or simulated sexually explicit conduct. When a corporation or other organization is the

primary producer of any particular image or picture, then no individual employee or

agent of that corporation or other organization will be considered to be a primary

producer of that image or picture.

publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film,

videotape, or digitally- or computer-manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended

for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being

engaged in actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer

site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a

computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, an actual human being

engaged in actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters

into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing. When a corporation

or other organization is the secondary producer of any particular image or picture, then

no individual of that corporation or other organization will be considered to be the

secondary producer of that image or picture.

153

* * * * *

(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual

depiction of actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:

(i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously existing visual

depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no other commercial interest in the

sexually explicit material, printing, and video duplication;

(ii) Distribution;

(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2)

of this section, that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise

arranging for the participation of the depicted performers;

(iv) The provision of a telecommunications service, or of an Internet access

service of Internet information location tool (as those terms are defined in section 231 of

the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 231));

(v) The transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any

combination thereof) of a communication, without selection or alteration of the content of

the communication, except that deletion of a particular communication or material made

by another person in a manner consistent with section 230(c) of the Communications Act

of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)) shall not constitute such selection or alteration of the content

of the communication; or

(vi) Unless the activity or activities are described in section 2257(h)(2)(A), the

dissemination of a depiction without having created it or altered its content.

a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image,

154

digital image, picture, or other matter that contains a visual depiction of an actual human

being engaged in actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct, but does not refer to

noncommercial or educational distribution of such matter, including transfers conducted

by bona fide lending libraries, museums, schools, or educational organizations.

(1) In reference to an identification document or a picture identification card,

means a photocopy, photograph, or digitally scanned reproduction;

(2) In reference to a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means a

by a webcam, the photo in a magazine); and

(3) In reference to an image on a webpage for purposes of §§ 75.6(a), 75.7(a), and

75.7(b), means every page of a Web site on which the image appears.

* * * * *

primary producer actually filmed, videotaped, or photographed, or created a digitally- or

computer-manipulated image or picture of, the visual depiction of an actual human

being engaged in actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct. For productions that

occur over more than one date, it means the single date that was the first of those dates.

For a performer who was not 18 as of this date, the date of original production is the

date that such a performer was first actually filmed, videotaped, photographed, or

otherwise depicted. With respect to matter that is a secondarily produced compilation of

individual, primarily produced depictions, the date of original production of the matter

is the earliest date after July 3, 1995, on which any individual depiction in that

155

compilation was produced. For a performer in one of the individual depictions

contained in that compilation who was not 18 as of this date, the date of original

production is the date that the performer was first actually filmed, videotaped,

photographed, or otherwise depicted for the individual depiction at issue.

that is depicted in a manner that would cause a reasonable viewer to believe that the

performers engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, even if they did not in fact do

so. It does not mean not sexually explicit conduct that is merely suggested.

any business practice(s) that ensure that the producer confirms the identity and age of all

employees who perform in visual depictions.

address, and date of birth of employees that is capable of being retrieved on the basis of

a name of an employee who appears in a specified visual depiction.

in any visual depiction, no matter for how short a period of time.

performing in a visual depiction or is otherwise in an employer-employee relationship

with the producer of the visual depiction as evidenced by oral or written agreements.

4. Amend § 75.2 by:

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text and paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), and

adding paragraph (a)(4);

156

b. Adding two sentences at the end of paragraph (b);

c. Revising paragraphs (c) and (d); and

d. Adding paragraphs (g) and (h).

The additions and revisions read as follows:

§ 75.2 Maintenance of records.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or

computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter that is produced in

whole or in part with materials that have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign

commerce, or is shipped, transported, or intended for shipment or transportation in

interstate or foreign commerce, and that contains one or more visual depictions of an

actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct (except lascivious

exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person) made after July 3, 1995, or one or

more visual depictions of an actual human being engaged in simulated sexually explicit

conduct or in actual sexually explicit conduct limited to lascivious exhibition of the

genitals or pubic area of any person made after [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], shall, for each performer portrayed in

such visual depiction, create and maintain records containing the following:

(1) The legal name and date of birth of each performer, obtained by the

producer’s examination of a picture identification card prior to production of the

depiction. For any performer portrayed in a depiction of an actual human being engaged

in actual sexually explicit conduct (except lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic

area of any person) made after July 3, 1995, or of an actual human being engaged in

simulated sexually explicit conduct or in actual sexually explicit conduct limited to

157

lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person made after [INSERT

DATE 90 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the records

shall also include a legible hard copy or legible digitally scanned or other electronic copy

of a hard copy of the identification document examined and, if that document does not

contain a recent and recognizable picture of the performer, a legible hard copy of a

picture identification card. For any performer portrayed in a depiction of an actual

human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct (except lascivious exhibition of

the genitals or pubic area of any person) made after June 23, 2005, or of an actual human

being engaged in simulated sexually explicit conduct or in actual sexually explicit

conduct limited to lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person made

after [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL

REGISTER], the records shall include a copy of the depiction, and, where the depiction

is published on an Internet computer site or service, a copy of any URL associated with

the depiction. If no URL is associated with the depiction, the records shall include

another uniquely identifying reference associated with the location of the depiction on the

Internet. For any performer in a depiction performed live on the Internet, the records

shall include a copy of the depiction with running-time sufficient to identify the

performer in the depiction and to associate the performer with the records needed to

confirm his or her age.

(2) Any name, other than the performer’s legal name, ever used by the performer,

including the performer’s maiden name, alias, nickname, stage name, or professional

name. For any performer portrayed in a visual depiction of an actual human being

engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct (except lascivious exhibition of the genitals or

158

pubic area of any person) made after July 3, 1995, or of an actual human being engaged

in simulated sexually explicit conduct or in actual sexually explicit conduct limited to

lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person made after [INSERT

DATE 90 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], such names

shall be indexed by the title or identifying number of the book, magazine, film, videotape,

digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, URL, or other matter.

Producers may rely in good faith on representations by performers regarding accuracy of

the names, other than legal names, used by performers.

* * * * *

(4) The primary producer shall create a record of the date of original production

of the depiction.

(b) * * * The copies of the records may be redacted to eliminate nonessential

information, including addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, and

other information not necessary to confirm the name and age of the performer. However,

the identification number of the picture identification card presented to confirm the name

and age may not be redacted.

(c) The information contained in the records required to be created and

maintained by this part need be current only as of the date of original production of the

visual depiction to which the records are associated. If the producer subsequently

produces an additional book, magazine, film, videotape, digitally- or computermanipulated

image, digital image, or picture, or other matter (including but not limited to

an Internet computer site or service) that contains one or more visual depictions of an

actual human being engaged in actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct made by a

159

performer for whom he maintains records as required by this part, the producer may add

the additional title or identifying number and the names of the performer to the existing

records maintained pursuant to § 75.2(a)(2). Producers of visual depictions made after

July 3, 1995, and before June 23, 2005, may rely on picture identification cards that were

valid forms of required identification under the provisions of part 75 in effect during that

time period.

(d) For any record of a performer in a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit

conduct (except lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person) created

or amended after June 23, 2005, or of a performer in a visual depiction of simulated

sexually explicit conduct or actual sexually explicit conduct limited to lascivious

exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person made after [INSERT DATE 90

DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], all such records shall

be organized alphabetically, or numerically where appropriate, by the legal name of the

performer (by last or family name, then first or given name), and shall be indexed or

cross-referenced to each alias or other name used and to each title or identifying number

of the book, magazine, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital

image, or picture, or other matter (including but not limited to an Internet computer site

or service). If the producer subsequently produces an additional book, magazine, film,

videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or picture, or other

matter (including but not limited to an Internet computer site or service) that contains one

or more visual depictions of an actual human being engaged in actual or simulated

sexually explicit conduct made by a performer for whom he maintains records as required

by this part, the producer shall add the additional title or identifying number and the

160

names of the performer to the existing records, and such records shall thereafter be

maintained in accordance with this paragraph.

* * * * *

(g) Records are not required to be maintained by either a primary producer or by a

secondary producer for a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct that consists only

of lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person, and contains no other

sexually explicit conduct, whose original production date was prior to [INSERT DATE

90 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(h) A primary or secondary producer may contract with a non-employee custodian

to retain copies of the records that are required under this part. Such custodian must

comply with all obligations related to records that are required by this Part, and such a

contract does not relieve the producer of his liability under this part.

5. Revise § 75.4 to read as follows:

§ 75.4 Location of records.

Any producer required by this part to maintain records shall make such records

available at the producer’s place of business or at the place of business of a nonemployee

custodian of records. Each record shall be maintained for seven years from the

date of creation or last amendment or addition. If the producer ceases to carry on the

business, the records shall be maintained for five years thereafter. If the producer

produces the book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computermanipulated

image, digital image, or picture, or other matter (including but not limited to

Internet computer site or services) as part of his control of or through his employment

with an organization, records shall be made available at the organization's place of

161

business or at the place of business of a non-employee custodian of records. If the

organization is dissolved, the person who was responsible for maintaining the records, as

described in § 75.6(b), shall continue to maintain the records for a period of five years

after dissolution.

6.. Section 75.5 is amended by revising:

a. Paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(3), and (c)(4);

b. Paragraph (d); and

c. Paragraph (e)

The revisions read as follows:

§ 75.5 Inspection of records.

* * * * *

business hours and at such places as specified in § 75.4. For the purpose of this part,

“normal business hours” are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., local time, Monday through Friday,

or, for inspections to be held at the place of business of a producer, any other time during

which the producer is actually conducting business relating to producing a depiction of

actual sexually explicit conduct. To the extent that the producer does not maintain at

least 20 normal business hours per week, the producer must provide notice to the

inspecting agency of the hours during which records will be available for inspection,

which in no case may be less than 20 hours per week.

* * * * *

(3) The inspections shall be conducted so as not to unreasonably disrupt the

operations of the establishment.

162

(4) At the conclusion of an inspection, the investigator may informally advise the

producer or his non-employee custodian of records of any apparent violations disclosed

by the inspection. The producer or non-employee custodian or records may bring to the

attention of the investigator any pertinent information regarding the records inspected or

any other relevant matter.

* * * * *

period, unless there is a reasonable suspicion to believe that a violation of this part has

occurred, in which case an additional inspection or inspections may be conducted before

the four-month period has expired.

his non-employee custodian of records, during the inspection, any record that is subject to

inspection.

* * * * *

7. Amend § 75.6 by:

a. Revising paragraph (a);

b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(2), and removing the second sentence

from paragraph (b)(3);

c. Revising paragraph (c); and

d. Adding paragraph (f).

The addition and revisions read as follows:

§ 75.6 Statement describing location of books and records.

163

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or

computer-manipulated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter (including but not

limited to an Internet computer site or service) that contains one or more visual depictions

of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct made after July 3,

1995, and produced, manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued after

July 3, 1995, or of a performer in a visual depiction of simulated sexually explicit

conduct or actual sexually explicit conduct limited to lascivious exhibition of the genitals

or pubic area of any person made after [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], shall cause to be affixed to every

copy of the matter a statement describing the location of the records required by this part.

A producer may cause such statement to be affixed, for example, by instructing the

manufacturer of the book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computermanipulated

image, digital image, picture, or other matter to affix the statement. In this

paragraph, the term “copy” includes every page of a Web site on which a visual depiction

of an actual human being engaged in actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct

appears.

* * * * *

(c) If the producer is an organization, the statement shall also contain the title and

business address of the person who is responsible for maintaining the records required by

this part.

* * * * *

(f) If the producer contracts with a non-employee custodian of records to serve as

the person responsible for maintaining his records, the statement shall contain the name

164

and business address of that custodian and may contain that information in lieu of the

information required in paragraphs (b)(3) and (c) of this section.

8. Revise § 75.7 to read as follows:

§ 75.7 Exemption statement.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or

computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter may cause to be

affixed to every copy of the matter a statement attesting that the matter is not covered by

the record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) or 18 U.S.C. 2257A(a)-(c), as

applicable, and of this part if:

(1) The matter contains visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made

only before July 3, 1995, or was last produced, manufactured, published, duplicated,

reproduced, or reissued before July 3, 1995. Where the matter consists of a compilation

of separate primarily produced depictions, the entirety of the conduct depicted was

produced prior to July 3, 1995, regardless of the date of secondary production;

(2) The matter contains only visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit

conduct or of actual sexually explicit conduct limited to lascivious exhibition of the

genitals or pubic area of any person, made before [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER];

(3) The matter contains only some combination of the visual depictions described

in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.

(b) If the primary producer and the secondary producer are different entities, the

primary producer may certify to the secondary producer that the visual depictions in the

matter satisfy the standards under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. The

165

secondary producer may then cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a statement

attesting that the matter is not covered by the record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C.

2257(a)-(c) or 18 U.S.C. 2257A(a)-(c), as applicable, and of this part.

9. Amend § 75.8 by:

a. Revising paragraph (d);

b. Redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph (f); and

c. Adding a new paragraph (e).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 75.8 Location of the statement

* * * * *

(d) A computer site or service or Web address containing a digitally- or computermanipulated

image, digital image, or picture shall contain the required statement on every

page of a Web site on which a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in

actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct appears. Such computer site or service or

Web address may choose to display the required statement in a separate window that

opens upon the viewer’s clicking or mousing-over a hypertext link that states, “18 U.S.C.

2257 [and/or 2257A, as appropriate] Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance

Statement.”

(e) For purpose of this section, a digital video disc (DVD) containing multiple

depictions is a single matter for which the statement may be located in a single place

covering all depictions on the DVD.

* * * * *

10. Add § 75.9 to read as follows:

166

§ 75.9 Certification of records.

depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct constituting lascivious exhibition of the

genitals or pubic area of a person or to a visual depiction of simulated sexually explicit

conduct if all of the following requirements are met:

(1) The visual depiction is intended for commercial distribution;

(2) The visual depiction is created as a part of a commercial enterprise;

(3) Either—

(i) The visual depiction is not produced, marketed or made available in

circumstances such that an ordinary person would conclude that the matter contains a

visual depiction that is child pornography as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2256(8), or,

(ii) The visual depiction is subject to regulation by the Federal Communications

Commission acting in its capacity to enforce 18 U.S.C. 1464 regarding the broadcast of

obscene, indecent, or profane programming; and

(4) The producer of the visual depiction certifies to the Attorney General that he

regularly and in the normal course of business collects and maintains individually

identifiable information regarding all performers, including minor performers, employed

by that person, pursuant to Federal and State tax, labor, and other laws, labor agreements,

or otherwise pursuant to industry standards, where such information includes the name,

address, and date of birth of the performer. (A producer of materials depicting sexually

explicit conduct not covered by the certification regime is not disqualified from using the

certification regime for materials covered by the certification regime.)

167

addressed to the Attorney General signed either by the chief executive officer or another

executive officer of the entity making the certification, or in the event the entity does not

have a chief executive officer or other executive officer, the senior manager responsible

for overseeing the entity’s activities.

(1) A statement setting out the basis under 18 U.S.C. 2257A and this part under

which the certifying entity and any sub-entities, if applicable, are permitted to avail

themselves of this exemption, and basic evidence justifying that basis.

(2) The following statement: “I hereby certify that [name of entity] [and all subentities

listed in this letter] regularly and in the normal course of business collect and

maintain individually identifiable information regarding all performers employed by

[name of entity]”; and

(3) If applicable because the visual depictions at issue were produced outside the

United States, the statement that: “I hereby certify that the foreign producers of the visual

depictions produced by [name of entity] either collect and maintain the records required

by sections 2257 and 2257A of title 18 of the U.S. Code, or have certified to the Attorney

General that they collect and maintain individually identifiable information regarding all

performers, including minor performers, employed by that person, pursuant to tax, labor,

and other laws, labor agreements, or otherwise pursuant to industry standards, where such

information includes the name, address, and date of birth of the performer, in accordance

with 28 CFR part 75; and [name of entity] has copies of those records or certifications.”

The producer may provide the following statement instead: “I hereby certify that with

168

respect to foreign primary producers who do not either collect and maintain the records

required by sections 2257 and 2257A of title 18 of the U.S. Code, or certify to the

Attorney General that they collect and maintain individually identifiable information

regarding all performers, including minor performers, whom they employ pursuant to tax,

labor, or other laws, labor agreements, or otherwise pursuant to industry standards, where

such information includes the names, addresses, and dates of birth of the performers, in

accordance with 28 CFR part 75, [name of entity] has taken reasonable steps to confirm

that the performers in any depictions that may potentially constitute simulated sexually

explicit conduct or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person were

not minors at the time the depictions were originally produced.” “Reasonable steps” for

purposes of this statement may include, but are not limited to, a good-faith review of the

visual depictions themselves or a good-faith reliance on representations or warranties

from a foreign producer.

some subset of all entities owned by the entity making the certification. However, the

names of all sub-entities covered must be listed in such certification and must be crossreferenced

to the matter for which the sub-entity served as the producer.

DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Initial

certifications of producers who begin production after [INSERT DATE OF

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], but before [INSERT DATE 180

DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], are due on [INSERT

DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Initial

169

certifications of producers who begin production after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS

AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] are due within 60 days of the

start of production. A subsequent certification is required only if there are material

changes in the information the producer certified in the initial certification; subsequent

certifications are due within 60 days of the occurrence of the material change. In any

case where a due date or last day of a time period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal

holiday, the due date or last day of a time period is considered to run until the next day

that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday.

December 9, 2008____________ _____________________________

Date Michael B. Mukasey

Attorney General

[FR Doc. 2008-29677 Filed 12/17/2008 at 8:45 am; Publication Date: 12/18/2008]