Thirty-two commenters commented that the requirement that a copy of 
each depiction be maintained would be unduly burdensome, leading to 
vast stocks of magazines and videotapes, and even storage of computer 
images would be unmanageable and prohibitive for small businesses. 
Thirty-five commenters also commented that the requirement to keep 
copies of each image is impossible to comply with due to the vast 
amount of data involved in storing digital images, especially, e.g., 
producers of live streaming video. The Department declines to adopt 
these comments. Maintaining one copy of each publication, production, 
or depiction is critical to making the inspection process meaningful. 
Commercial publishers and producers can reasonably be expected to 
comply. Furthermore, modern computer and disk storage capacities make 
digital archiving and back-up relatively inexpensive and space-
efficient. Finally, reviewing identification records in a vacuum would 
be meaningless without being able to cross-reference the depictions, 
and having the depictions on hand is necessary to determine whether in 
fact age-verification files are being maintained for each performer in 
a given depiction. In addition, without the depictions, inspectors 
could not confirm that each book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape 
or other matter has affixed to it a statement describing the location 
of the records, as required by the existing regulations. Exceptions 
cannot be made for producers of digital depictions, and indeed, it is 
likely less onerous to store digital images than paper images. Children 
are just as easily exploited in live streaming video as in any other 
visual medium. Therefore, an exception cannot be made for producers of 
live streaming video.
    Thirty-nine commenters commented that the requirement that records 
be available for inspection during specified normal business hours and 
any time business is conducted would be impossible for small businesses 
to meet, especially those run on a part-time basis or during non-
traditional hours. These commenters pointed out that the prior 
regulations simply provided that the availability be reasonable. The 
Department adopts this comment. The Department can accept that the 
producers of the sexually explicit depictions subject to the statute do 
not necessarily maintain traditional 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. business hours. 
Accordingly, the rule will be adjusted to permit inspections during the 
producer's normal business hours. To the extent the producer does not 
maintain or post regular business hours, producers will be required to 
provide notice to the inspecting agency of the hours during which their 
records will be available for inspection, which must total no less than 
twenty (20) per week, in order to permit reasonable access for 
inspectors.
    Thirty commenters commented that the proposed rule's requirement 
that the statement appear on the homepage of a Web site would lead to 
excessively lengthy statements that could deter viewers from 
downloading site content. The commenters suggested that web sites 
should be permitted to provide links that open windows to complex 
disclosure statements. In response to these comments, the Department 
has amended the proposed rule such that the final rule permits web 
sites to contain a hypertext link that states, ``18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-
Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement,'' that will open in a 
separate window that contains the required statement.
    Five commenters commented that the requirement that copies of each 
image be kept together with the records would interfere with the 
requirement that records be segregated. According to these commenters, 
hard copies of depictions cannot, by definition, be held together with 
electronic copies, and if computer records are kept, it is not possible 
for a producer to segregate records stored on a computer because they 
are all found on the same storage device. Further, claimed the 
commenters, the requirement under Sec.  75.2(e) that records be 
segregated from other records, not contain other records, or be 
contained within other records is vague. They claimed that it is 
unclear whether copies of records may never be in any other company 
files, which would be an irrational requirement and would open 
inadvertent misfilings to criminal prosecution.