One commenter commented regarding a minor drafting error in which 
Sec.  75.2(a)(1) of the proposed rule incorrectly referenced the 
definition of an identification document in 18 U.S.C. 1028. The 
Department has eliminated entirely the reference to 18 U.S.C. 1028, 
which is redundant in light of the final rule's defined term picture 
identification card.
    One commenter suggested that the regulation state that no person 
convicted of pedophilia, endangerment of a minor, or any sexual 
misconduct involving a minor be eligible to produce sexually explicit 
material or act as custodian of records required by the regulation. The 
Department is unable to adopt this comment, because the suggestion goes 
beyond the Department's authority to implement the statute.
    Two commenters suggested alternative means to implement the 
statute. One suggested that the Department establish a national ``sex 
ID'' system with which performers would register with the government in 
a national database. In the commenter's scheme, the model would receive 
an ID number that would be superimposed on images of the performer, 
enabling federal law enforcement officers to determine compliance with 
the rule by cross-referencing the ID numbers with the database. Another 
suggested that each producer store required identification records, 
indexed by URL, on a computer server in a password-protected folder 
made available to law enforcement. The Department declines to adopt 
these suggestions because it believes that they would be more 
burdensome on both the Department and producers to create, implement, 
and manage than the record-keeping system established by the rule. In 
addition, creation of such systems would likely require several years' 
work and delay implementation of the statute's record-keeping 
requirements.
    Similarly, two commenters suggested specific additions to the 
record-keeping requirements in the proposed rule. One commented that 
two forms of identification should be required of performers. The 
Department declines to adopt this comment because it believes that one 
form of valid photo identification is sufficient to establish the 
identity and age of the performer and that requiring more would be 
overly burdensome on businesses and performers themselves.
    One commenter commented that the exemption statement in the rule is 
unnecessary and redundant because if no statement is necessary, then 
the regulation does not apply and no statement of any kind can be 
required. The Department declines to adopt this comment for three 
reasons. First, the Department notes that the exemption-statement 
requirement was included in the previous version of the regulation. 
Second, the commenter is wrong to state that it is redundant. Since a 
primary or secondary producer could possess various sexually explicit 
depictions, some subject to the regulation and some not, it would be 
necessary for the producer to label both types, rather than only label 
those that are subject to the rules and give the impression both to the 
public and to government inspectors that the producer is not in 
compliance with the regulation. Third, the lack of an exemption 
statement could lead to a waste of resources by prompting inspections 
where none were needed because, unbeknownst to the inspector, the 
producer was exempt from the regulation.
    One commenter commented that Internet Presence Providers (IPPs) 
should receive the same exemption from the rule as Internet Service 
Providers (ISPs). The Department understands that IPPs are similar to 
ISPs in that they both act as hosts for web pages that are created and 
owned by other persons. It appears, however, that IPPs can also take on 
other responsibilities, including managing the operations of web sites 
themselves. The Department has amended the proposed rule to exclude 
web-hosting services to the extent that their employees are not, and 
cannot reasonably be, engaged in managing the sexually explicit content 
of the site (for either technical or contractual reasons). The 
Department does not believe it is appropriate to provide a blanket 
exemption from the regulation for IPPs because it would enable owners 
of such web sites to disclaim responsibility for complying with the 
regulation by asserting that the IPPs are actually engaged in regulated 
activities while also exempting IPPs in toto, thus leading to a gap in 
coverage of producers.
    One commenter commented that the regulation should specify that a 
record-keeper may refuse to speak to an investigator or may leave the 
premises during an investigation, so that no questions arise regarding 
whether the inspection rises to the level of custodial interrogation. 
The Department declines to adopt this comment. A record keeper's 
conduct during an inspection will not be regulated. To the extent that 
it becomes necessary in any given case, both the government and the 
individual will have available to them the full panoply of 
constitutional and legal protections and authorities to allow a court 
to determine, in the normal course of any prosecution that may arise 
and on a case-by-case basis, whether a custodial interrogation occurred 
at the time of inspection, and will bear the consequences of the 
court's determination.
    One commenter commented that the proposed rule did not define how 
an inspector could copy physical or digital records during an 
inspection. The Department declines to adopt this comment. The 
inspectors will avail themselves of a portable photocopier or means to 
copy digital records (e.g., computer disks) as needed, and the final