Thirty-three commenters commented that the rule included an 
improper starting date from which records must be maintained. These 
commenters claimed that the Department previously stated, in accordance 
with the court's order in American Library Ass'n v. Reno, Civil Action 
No. 91-0394 (SSS) (D.D.C. July 28, 1995), that July 3, 1995, was the 
effective date for enforcement of section 2257. Nevertheless, the 
commenters said, Sec. Sec.  75.2(a), 75.6, and 75.7(a)(1) of the 
proposed rule refer to November 1, 1990, and Sec. Sec.  75.2(a)(1) and 
(2), 75.6, and 75.7(a)(1) refer to May 26, 1992. The commenters argued 
that the effective dates of the regulation should be changed to be 
consistent with the Department's representations or, in the 
alternative, made purely prospective in order to provide producers a 
chance to comply. Further, they argued, no obligations should be 
imposed concerning images made prior to the effective date.
    Based on the Department's decision not to appeal American Library 
Ass'n v. Reno and its representation regarding the effective date of 
the regulation to non-parties to American Library Ass'n v. Reno, the 
Department has amended the proposed rule and in the final rule makes 
July 3, 1995, the effective date of the regulation and imposes no 
obligations on producers concerning sexually explicit depictions 
manufactured prior to that effective date.
    Several commenters commented that the provision permitting seizure 
of records is unconstitutionally broad, could lead to prior restraint, 
and does not define what specific materials may be seized. The 
Department declines to adopt this comment. The Department notes that 
the regulatory and inspection scheme outlined in the final rule is a 
constitutional exercise of government power and, therefore, the 
presence of a law enforcement officer on the premises of the entity 
being inspected is authorized. In such a case, evidence of a crime may 
be seized by a law enforcement officer under the plain-view exception 
to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, and the materials seized 
do not need to be specifically described in the regulation that 
authorized the inspection.
    Four commenters objected to the inclusion in the definition of 
producer of parent organizations and subsidiaries of producers, 
claiming it was beyond the Department's statutory authority, did not 
specify which entities must comply with the statute, overrode state 
laws on business associations, and violated the principles of Sundance 
Assoc., Inc. v. Reno. While not confirming the validity of, or 
adopting, the specific objections of the commenters, the Department has 
eliminated the inclusion of parent and subsidiary organizations in the 
definition of producer.
    Citing American Library Ass'n v. Reno, three commenters claimed 
that the proposed rule's requirement to ascertain performers' aliases 
appeared to impose an obligation on the producer to verify all aliases, 
whereas, according to them, American Library Ass'n v. Reno requires 
only that the producer obtain the aliases from performers themselves. 
Three commentators claimed that the proposed rule's requirement that 
information in the label be accurate as of the date on which material 
is sold violates American Library Ass'n v. Reno, which required 
accuracy on the date the material was produced or reproduced.
    The Department, having reviewed American Library Ass'n v. Reno, 
agrees with the commenters that minor changes should be made to the 
proposed rule for publication as a final rule in order to comply with 
the D.C. Circuit's decision. The final rule clarifies that the 
producers may rely on the representations regarding aliases that