Two commenters commented that the length of retention of records 
was too long and could multiply to include excessively long periods of 
time. The commenters also claimed that the periods of time in the 
proposed rule were contrary to the D.C. Circuit's opinion in American 
Library Ass'n v. Reno. The Department declines to adopt this comment. 
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 claim of 
the commenters, do not violate American Library Ass'n v. Reno. In that 
case, the D.C. Circuit held that Sec.  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.
    One commenter objected to the proposed rule's lack of prior 
announcement of inspections. Advance notice, the commenter stated, 
would allow producers to put records in proper order and ensure that 
someone would be on the premises when investigators visited. The rule 
should specify what happens in cases in which no one is present when 
the investigator arrives. The Department declines to adopt this 
comment. Advanced notice would provide the opportunity to falsify 
records in order to pass inspection. Lack of specific case-by-case 
notice prior to inspection will promote compliance with the statute and 
encourage producers to maintain the records in proper order at all 
times, as is contemplated by the statute. The rule will specify that 
inspections are to occur during the producer's normal business hours. 
The inspection process clearly does not contemplate warrantless forced 
entry solely because no one is present when the investigator arrives.
    One commenter commented that the proposed rule appeared to require 
hard copies of records and suggested that digital copies be permitted 
in order to simplify storage and indexing. The Department adopts this 
comment. Records may be maintained in either ``hard'' (paper) form or 
digital form, provided that they include scanned forms of 
identification and that there is a custodian of records who can 
authenticate each digital record. The regulation has been revised to 
clarify this point.
    One commenter commented that the regulation should permit the 
statement to be located on main menu screen of a DVD, rather than 
requiring the statement to appear in the movie itself. The Department 
declines to adopt this comment. The statement cannot be severed from 
the actual depiction because that could lead to confusion on the part 
of the public as to the applicability of the statement in cases, for 
example, when there is more than one film on a DVD or when a movie on a 
DVD is also available in other contexts in which the statement must be 
appended (e.g., posted on a Web site).
    One commenter commented that the list of acceptable forms of 
performer identification in the proposed rule is unduly restrictive and 
argued that college and employer identification cards should be 
acceptable. The Department declines to adopt this comment. The 
regulation properly requires a government-issued identification 
document because other forms of identification are too susceptible to 
forgery to accomplish the purposes of the Part.
    One commenter who supported the proposed rule stated that he 
created a system to help webmasters comply with the rules and protect 
the identity of individuals depicted in the images while allowing 
verification by law enforcement. The commenter stated that no 
webmasters took advantage of his system because, he said, they believe 
that there is an extremely remote possibility of being prosecuted for 
non-compliance and that the Sundance ruling protects them. The comment 
tends to demonstrate that the claim by industry groups that the rule is 
unconstitutionally burdensome is