[[Page 29610]]

performers make and are not obligated to investigate further. In 
addition, the final rule requires that information in the label be 
accurate as of the date the material is produced or reproduced.
    The Department rejects, however, two commenters' claims that the 
Department does not have authority to require a date on the label in 
the first instance. Although section 2257 does not explicitly require a 
date on the label, the Attorney General has the statutory authority to 
issue appropriate regulations to implement the section and has 
determined that the purposes of the section cannot be accomplished 
without such a date. There would be no way to determine whether a 
performer is underage without knowing the date that the material was 
produced or reproduced.
    Two commenters commented that the proposed rule did not exempt 
printers, film processors, and video duplicators from the definition of 
producer, as required by American Library Ass'n v. Reno. The Department 
adopts this comment, and the final rule provides such an exemption.
    One commenter commented that section 2257 was restricted to 
producers of sexually explicit material that was produced with 
materials that had traveled in interstate or foreign commerce or was 
intended to be shipped, or was in fact shipped, in interstate or 
foreign commerce, while the proposed rule applied to ``[a]ny producer'' 
of any sexually explicit depiction with no such limitation. The 
Department agrees that the regulation needs to contain the same federal 
jurisdictional nexus as the statute. The Department has therefore 
accordingly amended the proposed rule so that the final rule contains a 
limitation such that it applies only to producers of material that was 
produced with materials that had traveled in interstate or foreign 
commerce or was intended to be shipped, or was in fact shipped, in 
interstate or foreign commerce.
    One commenter commented that protecting children could be 
accomplished by requiring a credit card to access a pornographic 
website. The commenter apparently erroneously confused this regulation, 
which is designed to protect children from being exploited as 
performers, with protecting children from viewing pornography, which is 
the subject of other statutes and regulations. No change is being made 
in response to this comment.