[[Page 29615]]

exaggerated. Nonetheless, the Department does not endorse this 
commenter's particular system as it has no means to determine whether 
the system actually works.
    One commenter commented that the provision for inspections every 
four months is too frequent and is an invitation for harassment. Some 
businesses are so small and static that the required records are 
unlikely to change over a particular four-month period. The Department 
declines to adopt this comment. The regulations necessarily are 
designed to provide an adequate inspection interval for the most 
prolific producers as well as the relatively small-scale producers. The 
Department has determined that limiting the frequency of inspections to 
every four months will allow inspectors to keep pace with major 
producers while at the same time avoid excessive inspections of smaller 
producers. Moreover, four months denotes the maximum frequency of 
inspections; inspectors may inspect less frequently at their 
discretion.

Privacy

    Sixty-two commenters commented that revealing personal information 
of performers, for example, in the form of their addresses on drivers' 
licenses used as identification documents in compliance with this 
regulation, is an invasion of performers' privacy and could lead to 
identity theft or violent crimes. Forty commenters commented that 
including the names and addresses of businesses where the records at 
issue are located would similarly lead to crimes against those 
businesses. The Department declines to adopt these comments. While the 
Department is certainly concerned about possible crimes against 
performers and businesses that employ them, the necessity of 
maintaining these records to ensure that children are not exploited 
outweighs these concerns. Furthermore, specifically regarding personal 
information about performers required to be provided to primary 
producers, the Department notes that the information required is no 
different from that required by other forms of employee or business 
records, such as social security numbers and dates of birth required 
for tax reporting purposes, emergency contact numbers in case of health 
problems, or addresses used to transmit paychecks. Regarding 
information about producers, such as their physical location, that 
those producers must include in their statements, the Department notes 
that producers are already required, under the current Part 75 
regulations, to include that information. Finally, regarding personal 
information about performers that must be transmitted to secondary 
producers, the Department again notes, first, that such information is 
already required by the current Part 75 regulations, and, second, that 
none of the commenters presented any evidence that a hypothetically 
possible crime, such as the stalking of a performer, was in any way 
tied to the dissemination of the information about a performer provided 
to a producer in compliance with Part 75.
    Another commenter proposed that secondary producers be required to 
store sanitized (i.e., without personal information such as home 
address) hard or digital copies of performers' identification documents 
along with a notarized affidavit from the primary producer stating the 
location of the complete records. The Department declines to adopt this 
comment. Although the Department understands the commenter's desire to 
protect private information about performers from being too widely 
disseminated, it believes that the suggested plan would be overly 
burdensome on primary producers and add an unnecessary layer of 
complexity to the record-keeping process. Primary producers would be 
required first to sanitize the identification documents and then to 
draft, sign, and pay for a notarized affidavit. It is simpler and less 
burdensome simply to have primary producers transfer a copy of the 
records to secondary producers.
    One commenter also commented that the proposed rule may force 
foreign primary producers to violate foreign laws regarding protection 
of information. If primary producers in foreign countries decide to 
comply with their home privacy laws and not provide materials to U.S. 
entities, the regulation will chill the availability of materials and 
speech to U.S. citizens. The Department declines to adopt this comment. 
The rule is no different from other forms of labeling requirements 
imposed on foreign producers of, e.g., alcohol, tobacco, or food items 
that are imported into the United States. In order to sell in the U.S. 
market, foreign producers must comply with U.S. laws. This rule applies 
equally to any sexually explicit material introduced into the stream of 
commerce in the United States no matter where it was produced. Foreign 
producers have the option of not complying with the rule, but then 
their access to the U.S. market is justly and lawfully prohibited.