FDLP STUDY ASCII VERSION

GP 3.2:EL 2/3/FINAL

Report to the Congress

STUDY TO IDENTIFY MEASURES NECESSARY
FOR A SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION
TO A MORE ELECTRONIC
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM

As Required By
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996
Public Law 104-53

U.S. Government
Printing Office
Washington, DC 20401
June 1996

GPO Publication 500.11

Report to the Congress

STUDY TO IDENTIFY MEASURES NECESSARY
FOR A SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION TO A MORE ELECTRONIC
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM

As Required By
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996
Public Law 104-53

U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, DC 20401
June 1996

GPO Publication 500.11

Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Study to identify measures necessary for a successful transition to a
more electronic Federal Depository Library Program : as required by
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996, Public Law 104-53 :
report to the Congress.
p. cm. (GPO publication ; 500.11)
"June, 1996"
Includes bibliographical references.
Supt. of Docs. no.: GP 3.2:EL 2/3/FINAL

1. Federal Depository Library Program. 2. Government
publications--United States--Data processing. 3. Depository
libraries--United States--Automation. 4. Online information
processing
services--United States. 5. Digital libraries--United States. I.
United States. Government Printing Office. II. Series: United States.
Government Printing Office. GPO publication ; 500.11

CIP

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

III. Principles for Federal Government Information . . . . . . 4

IV. Mission and Goals for the Federal Depository Library Program 5

V. Policy Issues That Impact Publishing Agencies, GPO, NARA,
Depository Libraries,
the Public and the Private Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

VI. Comparison of the Historical FDLP With the Electronic FDLP as
Envisioned in the
Strategic Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Goal 1: Ensure equitable, no fee, local public access . 11
Goal 2: Use new information technologies to improve public access
14
Goal 3: Provide information in formats appropriate to users and
intended usage 17
Goal 4: Enable the public to locate information . . . . 18
Goal 5: Ensure both timely, current and permanent, future public
access 19
Goal 6: Facilitate preservation of information through NARA 21
Goal 7: Ensure that the program is cost-effective for all parties 22

VII. Results and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Attachments

Attachment A: Legislative Requirements for the Study . . . A-1

Attachment B: Roster of Working Group Members, Advisors and Staff
A-7

Attachment C: List of Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-13

Attachment D: Task Force Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-17

D-1 Task 1: Technical Analysis by a Federally-Funded Research and
Development Center (FFRDC) . . . . . . . . . . . . A-19

D-2 Task 2: Identification of Relevant Laws, Regulations and
Policies
Regarding Government Information Dissemination . . A-23

D-3 Task 3: Bibliography of Information Relevant to the Study A-35

D-4 Task 5: Evaluation of Incentives for Publishing Agencies to
Migrate
from Print Products to Electronic Formats . . . . A-47

Attachments, continued

Attachment D: Task Force Reports, continued

D-5 Task 6: Evaluation of Current Laws Governing the Federal
Depository
Library Program and Recommendation of Legislative Changes
A-55

D-6 Task 7: Survey of Federal Agencies to Identify CD-ROM Titles
Not
Currently Included in the Federal Depository Library Program
A-63

D-7 Task 8A: Case Study on Congressional Bills . . . A-69

D-8 Task 8B: Case Study on the Congressional Serial Set A-75

D-9 Task 8C: Case Study on the Department of Energy (DOE)
Research
Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-83

D-10 Task 8D: Case Study on the Office of Technology Assessment
(OTA)
Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-91

D-11 Task 9: Evaluation of Inclusion in Electronic Formats of
Materials Not
Traditionally Included in the FDLP in Either Paper or Microfiche
A-103

D-12 Task 9A: Case Study on Securities and Exchange Commission
EDGAR Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-115

D-13 Task 9B: Case Study on Federal District and Circuit Court
Opinions A-121

D-14 Task 10A: Federal Programs Permitting or Requiring the Sale
of
Information to Recover Costs -- Case Study on STAT-USA Services
A-131

D-15 Task 10B: Federal Programs Permitting or Requiring the Sale
of
Information to Recover Costs -- Case Study on the National
Library
of Medicine MEDLINE Service . . . . . . . . . . A-139

Attachment E: National Commission on Libraries and Information
Science (NCLIS)
Principles of Public Information . . . . . . . . A-147

Attachment F: Title 44 United States Code Chapter 19--Depository
Library Program A-151

Attachment G: Summary of Results from the 1995 Biennial Survey of
Federal
Depository Libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-159

Attachment H: Recommended Minimum Specifications for Public
Access Workstations
in Federal Depository Libraries . . . . . . . . A-167

Attachment I: Comments from U.S. Senators . . . . . . . . A-173

Attachment J: Minutes from Meeting of Working Group and Advisors
on April 18, 1996 A-181

Attachment K: Comments from the Depository Library Council to the
Public PrinterA-191

Attachment L: Comments from the Information Industry
AssociationA-209

Attachments, continued

Attachment M: Comments from the Library Associations. . . .A-219

Attachment N: Comments from the National Commission on Libraries
and
Information Science. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-253

Exhibit 1: Federal Depository Library Program: Information
Dissemination and
Access Strategic Plan, FY 1996 - FY 2001

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-i

Principles for Federal Government Information . . . . E-iii

Mission and Goals for the Federal Depository Library Program E-iv

Basic Assumptions for the Information Dissemination and Access
Strategic Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-v

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-vi

I. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

II. Approach to Electronic Dissemination and Access . E-2

III. Depository Library Roles and Service Expectations E-8

IV. Administrative and Support Activities . . . . . . E-11

V. Impact of this Plan on other SOD Programs. . . . . E-12

List of Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-15

Appendix A: Paper Titles in the FDLP--Core List. . . E-17

Appendix B: FDLP System Requirements for Electronic Access E-19

Appendix C: Transition Chronology. . . . . . . . . . E-21

Appendix D: Incorporating Agency Information Products in the
FDLP E-25

Report to the Congress

STUDY TO IDENTIFY MEASURES NECESSARY
FOR A SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION TO A MORE ELECTRONIC
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Emerging technologies afford tremendous opportunities for
improved and
enhanced public access to Government information. These
opportunities
bring new challenges that require the reevaluation of current
information
dissemination programs to take advantage of new opportunities and
minimize
disruption of public access during this period of rapid change. In
August,
1995, the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), at the direction of
Congress, initiated a cooperative study to identify measures necessary
for
a successful transition to a more electronic Federal Depository Library
Program (FDLP). The study was concluded in March 1996, and a draft
report
was issued in order to provide an extended opportunity for public
comment.
This is the final report to Congress on the FDLP Study. In order to
complete the study and prepare this report, it was necessary to
establish
definitions to clarify the meaning of several important words and
phrases.
These definitions are provided on page v of this report.

To implement the study, the Public Printer established a working
group
consisting of representatives from GPO, appropriate Congressional
committees, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA), the Federal Publishers Committee (FPC), the
Interagency Council on Printing and Publication Services (ICPPS), the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and the depository library
community. He also invited a number of organizations to identify
representatives to serve as advisors to the working group. Comments
from advisors are provided in Attachments J through N.

A substantial amount of useful information was gathered and
numerous
issues and alternatives were identified and examined during the course
of
the study. These are summarized in this report. A number of specific
tasks were identified to provide information and alternatives for
consideration. The preparation of the task force reports and the review
of
public comments resulting from their dissemination were the primary
fact-finding activities of the study. The task force reports are included
in Attachment D; they were the product of a substantial amount of
effort on
the part of the task leaders and participants.

Separately, a document entitled the Electronic Federal Depository
Library Program: Transition Plan, FY 1996 - FY 1998 was developed by
GPO
and included with its FY 1997 appropriations request. Public
comments in
response to this document also provided useful information to the
study
participants, and led directly to the development of the Federal
Depository
Library Program: Information Dissemination and Access Strategic Plan,
FY
1996 - FY 2001, included with this report as Exhibit 1. The Strategic
Plan
proposes four ways in which GPO can bring electronic information into
the
FDLP:

- GPO can identify, describe and link the public to the wealth of
distributed Government information maintained at Government
electronic information services for free public use.

- GPO can establish reimbursable agreements with agencies that
provide
fee-based Government electronic information services in order to
provide free public access to their information through the FDLP. -
GPO can "ride" agency requisitions and pay for depository copies of
tangible electronic information products, such as CD-ROM titles,
even if they are not produced or procured through GPO.

- GPO can obtain from agencies electronic source files for
information
the agencies do not wish to disseminate through their own
Government
electronic information services. These files can be made available
through the GPO Access services or disseminated to depository
libraries in CD-ROM or other tangible format.

Section V, Policy Issues That Impact Publishing Agencies, GPO,
NARA,
Depository Libraries, the Public and the Private Sector, summarizes the
major issues identified in the course of the study process. While many
of
these issues are not new, this study has examined the issues in the new
context of the rapid shift of the FDLP into a more electronic program.

The major conclusions of the study are summarized below:

Scope of the FDLP: There is widespread interest in expanding the
content of
the program to make it more comprehensive, and a great deal of
optimism
that the rapid expansion of agency electronic publishing offers
cost-effective options to do so. Nevertheless, the highest priority
remains the retention of information content that historically has been
in
the program and is rapidly leaving it as agencies move from print to
electronic publishing or eliminate Government information products to
save
costs.

Notification and Compliance: The historical program relied heavily on
the
ability of the FDLP to obtain material as it was printed or procured
through GPO. With the increasing emphasis on electronic
dissemination and
decreasing compliance with statutory requirements for agencies to print
through GPO, identifying and obtaining information for the FDLP is
becoming
increasingly difficult. There must be new means to inform agencies of
their responsibilities and to ensure compliance with agency FDLP
obligations. There must be effective means for all three branches of
Government to notify GPO of their intent to: (1) initiate, (2)
substantially modify, or (3) terminate Government information
products.
This includes Government information products in all formats,
including
information available from Government electronic information services,
such
as agency World Wide Web sites.

Permanent Access to Authentic Information: The FDLP has the
responsibility
for providing permanent public access to the official Government
information products disseminated through the program./1/
Historically,
permanent access has been the role of the regional depository libraries,
and this has been a cost-effective means of ensuring that Government
information products remained available to the public indefinitely.
Permanent access also is an essential element of the electronic
depository
library program, but it will be more difficult to attain. To ensure
permanent public access to official electronic Government information
products, all of the institutional program stakeholders (information
producing agencies, GPO, depository libraries and NARA) must
cooperate to
establish authenticity, provide persistent identification and description
of Government information products, and establish appropriate
arrangements
for its continued accessibility. This includes identification and
implementation of standard formats for FDLP dissemination/2/ and
providing
for the technological currency of the electronic information products
available at GPO for remote access. In the case of tangible information
products, permanent access will remain a responsibility of regional
depository libraries, while in the case of remotely accessible
information
products, it will be the responsibility of GPO, as the administrator of
the
FDLP, to coordinate a distributed system that provides continuous,
permanent public access.

/1/ Permanent access is required by 44 U.S.C. 1911: "Depository
libraries
not served by a regional depository library, or that are regional
depository libraries themselves, shall retain Government
publications
permanently in either printed form or in microfacsimile form, except
superseded publications or those issued later in bound form which
may
be discarded as authorized by the Superintendent of Documents."

/2/ Additional conclusions related to the requirement for assessment of
standards for creation and dissemination of electronic Government
information products are provided on the next page.

Locator Services: Together, the Cataloging and Indexing Program
required by
44 U.S.C. 1710 and 1711 and the Locator Services required by 44
U.S.C.
4101 provide the statutory basis for GPO to assist depository libraries
and the public to identify and obtain access to the full range of
Government information. In a distributed environment, where libraries
and
users often access Government electronic information services rather
than
local collections, tools for identifying and locating information will be
critical components of an effective program.

Timetable for Implementation: The Transition Plan, submitted with the
GPO
FY 1997 appropriations request, projected an ambitious, two and
one-half
year schedule for conversion to a more electronic FDLP (FY 1996 to FY
1998). Input from publishing agencies and depository libraries
indicates a
five to seven year transition would be more realistic and cost-effective
since it would allow GPO to convert to electronic information at the
same
pace as publishing agencies can produce it and depository libraries can
absorb it. It will be substantially more costly for GPO to convert agency
print publications to electronic formats than it will be to work in
partnership with the agencies, assisting them in accelerating their own
electronic publishing initiatives. Consequently, the Strategic Plan
attached to the report as Exhibit 1 proposes a transition period of FY
1996
through FY 2001.

Assessment of Standards for Creation and Dissemination of Electronic
Government Information Products: For the successful implementation
of a
more electronic FDLP, the Congress, GPO and the library community
must have
additional information about future agency publishing plans, as well as
an
expert evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and usefulness of various
electronic formats that may be utilized for depository library
dissemination or access. A central implementation issue is the
identification and utilization of standards for creation and
dissemination
of electronic Government information products. These standards
would
enhance access to and use of Government information by both the
Government
and the public. The Government produces an enormous quantity and
variety
of information. The standards best suited for one type of data may be
substantially less suited, or even entirely inappropriate, for another.
Consequently, there is no single standard in which all Government
information products can, or should, be created or disseminated.
Nevertheless, it is in the best interests of the Government, and those
who
use Government information, to achieve a greater degree of
standardization
than now exists, and to develop recommended standards for each major
type
of Government information product in order to facilitate the exchange
and
use of that information.

To accomplish this, it is first necessary to know the range of formats
Federal agencies currently use in the creation and dissemination of
information and to assess the de facto or actual standards that are in
use
for each major type of data. It also is necessary to identify areas where
there is no standardization, or such limited standardization that the
effect is virtually the same. Finally, it would be useful to evaluate
standards utilized by private sector and other non-governmental
publishers.
This information will provide the basis for an assessment, in
consultation
with the depository library community, of the usefulness and
cost-effectiveness of various electronic formats for depository library
dissemination or access. It also will be the basis for a dialog with the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the National
Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS), the
National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and others with an
interest
in establishing and promulgating Government-wide standards for
information
creation and dissemination.

GPO is proposing to accomplish this data gathering and evaluation
through a joint effort with NCLIS. As an independent Federal agency
established to advise the President and the Congress on national
policies
related to library and information services adequate to meet the needs
of
the people of the United States, NCLIS is uniquely situated to
coordinate
this activity. While substantial changes are already underway, this
assessment of standards for creation and dissemination of electronic
Government information products should proceed as rapidly as
possible in
order to assure a successful and cost-effective transition to a more
electronic FDLP.

Cost of Electronic Information Dissemination: While there are many
benefits
inherent in the use of electronic information, including more timely and
broader public access, there is no conclusive data at this time to
support
the assertion that it will result in significant savings to the program as
a whole in the next few years. Based on comments received, electronic
dissemination and access will shift the costs among the program
participants. For example, GPO will incur additional, recurring costs to
provide permanent public access through its electronic information
services, as will other Government agencies that maintain information
products through their own services. Costs for migration can be
minimized
by the adoption and use of open systems standards through the entire
life
cycle of information products--from the time the original source files
are
created by the publishing agencies to final preservation by NARA.

Similarly, depository libraries and their users will have to pay to
print, or purchase printed copies of, information that is needed in
print,
but is no longer disseminated in the format through the FDLP. At the
same
time, depository libraries will have to provide specialized staff training,
public access workstations, software and the related services necessary
to
connect the public to remotely accessible Government electronic
information
services. GPO will continue to monitor the technological capabilities of
the depository libraries to provide cost-effective public access to
electronic Government information products, particularly as it relates
to
the standards utilized by agencies in the creation and dissemination of
electronic Government information products. GPO also will begin to
monitor
the costs to users for printing, downloading and similar services using
depository library equipment.

GPO and other study participants have noted that there is a need for
more in-depth and concrete data on the life cycle costs to the
Government
for creating, disseminating and providing permanent access to its
information products, to depository libraries for providing public
access
to them, and to the public for using them. However, the transition to
electronic dissemination of Government information is still in its early
stages, so it is doubtful that reliable and conclusive data on life cycle
costs could be gathered in this rapidly evolving period. Nevertheless,
the
assessment of standards proposed in this report is an essential first
step
toward the ultimate goal of collecting and analyzing information life
cycle
costs. It will provide a basis for further consultation with the library
community and for discussions with publishing agencies concerning the
appropriate standards for cost-effective dissemination of Government
information products in formats appropriate to the needs of users and
the
intended usage. The assessment also will provide valuable information
to
Congress for the future development of appropriate and cost-effective
Government information policies and programs.

Legislative Changes: Substantial changes in the FDLP already are
underway
within the context of the existing statute. Nevertheless, certain key
legislative changes could be made in order to assure a successful and
cost-effective transition to a more electronic FDLP. These changes are
discussed in the report on Task 6 (Attachment D-5) and many of them
are
reflected in the preceding conclusions.

DEFINITIONS

The following definitions are provided to clarify the meaning of several
important words and phrases as used in this report. Unless otherwise
noted, in this report "Government" always refers to the Government of
the
United States.

"Agency" means any Federal Government department, including any
military
department, independent regulatory agency, Government corporation,
Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the
executive,
legislative, or judicial branch.

"Depository library" means a library, designated under the provisions
of
44 U.S.C. Chapter 19, which maintains tangible Government
information
products for use by the general public, offers professional assistance in
locating and using Government information, and provides local
capability
for the general public to access Government electronic information
services.

The "Federal Depository Library Program" is a nationwide
geographically-dispersed system, established under the provisions of 44
U.S.C. Chapter 19 and administered by the Superintendent of
Documents,
consisting of libraries acting in partnership with the United States
Government for the purpose of enabling the general public to have local
access to Federal Government information at no cost.

"Government electronic information service" means the system or
method by
which an agency or its authorized agent provides public access to
Government information products via a telecommunications network.

"Government information" means Government publications, or other
Government information products, regardless of form or format,
created or
compiled by employees of a Government agency, or at Government
expense, or
as required by law./1/

/1/ "Government information" has a significantly broader meaning in the
context of Federal records.

"Government information product" means a discrete set of Government
information, either conveyed in a tangible physical format including
electronic media, or made publicly accessible via a Government
electronic
information service.

"Migration" means both: (1) the periodic refreshing or transfer of
Government information products from one medium to another in
order to
minimize loss of information due to physical deterioration of storage
media
and (2) the reformatting of information to avoid technological
obsolescence
due to software or platform dependence.

"Permanent access" means that Government information products
within the
scope of the FDLP remain available for continuous, no fee public access
through the program./2/ For emphasis, the phrase "permanent public
access"
is sometimes used with the same definition.

/2/ Permanent access is required by 44 U.S.C. 1911: "Depository
libraries
not served by a regional depository library, or that are regional
depository libraries themselves, shall retain Government
publications
permanently in either printed form or in microfacsimile form, except
superseded publications or those issued later in bound form..." In the
case of tangible information products, permanent access remains a
responsibility of regional depository libraries, while in the case of
remotely accessible Government information products, it is a
responsibility of GPO to coordinate a distributed system that
provides
continuous, permanent public access.

"Preservation" means that official records of the Federal Government,
including Government information products made available through
the FDLP,
which have been determined to have sufficient historical or other value
to
warrant being held and maintained in trust for future generations of
Americans, are retained by the National Archives and Records
Administration
(NARA).

Report to the Congress

STUDY TO IDENTIFY MEASURES NECESSARY
FOR A SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION TO A MORE ELECTRONIC
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM

I. INTRODUCTION

The advent of electronic dissemination has brought with it a host of
new problems and concerns unheard of, or less prevalent, in the
paper-based
model of Government information dissemination. In many cases,
technology
has outpaced efforts of the Government to accommodate and adjust to
its
development. Several legislative and administrative initiatives over the
last decade, including the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Government
Printing Office Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993,
and
the 1994 revision of OMB Circular A-130, have attempted to address
and/or
advance the shift in Government dissemination methods from paper to
electronic.

The U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), at the direction of
Congress, initiated a cooperative study to identify measures necessary
for
a successful transition to a more electronic Federal Depository Library
Program (FDLP). The study began in August 1995 and involved
representatives from the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of
the Government, as well as the depository library community, the
national
library associations, the information industry, and other appropriate
Government and public entities.

In the Senate Report 104-114 to accompany H.R. 1854, the
Legislative
Branch Appropriations Act of 1996, the Committee stated that:

While acknowledging that recent advances in technology provide
new
opportunities for public access to Government information, the report
stated that without careful analysis, planning, and a strongly
coordinated
effort, improvements to the FDLP would be delayed, costly, and might
compromise the public's right to Government information. Since the
increasing utilization of electronic technologies in support of
dissemination programs by all three branches of Government
necessitates
analysis, planning and a probable restructuring of the FDLP, the
Committee
directed the Public Printer to initiate a study that:

- Examines the functions and services of the Federal Depository
Library Program;

- Surveys current technological capabilities of the participating
libraries in the Federal Depository Library Program;

- Surveys current and future information dissemination plans of
executive branch agencies;

- Examines and suggests improvements for agency compliance of
relevant
laws, regulations, and policies regarding Government information
dissemination;

- Identifies measures necessary to ensure a successful transition to a
more electronically based program;

- Identifies the possible expansion of the array of Federal
information products and services made available to participating
libraries; and,

- Ensures the most cost effective program to the taxpayer.

The Senate report also directed that the study include a strategic plan
that could assist the Congress in redefining a new and strengthened
Federal
information dissemination policy and program. That plan is attached
as
Exhibit 1. The final Study Report was to be made available to Congress
by
March 1996.

House Report 104-212 to accompany H.R. 1854 concurred with the
Senate
recommendation, and Public Law 104-53 (109 Stat. 533), the Legislative
Branch Appropriations Act, 1996, included the following provision:

Sec. 210. The fiscal year 1997 budget submission of the Public
Printer to the Congress for the Government Printing Office shall
include appropriations requests and recommendations to the
Congress
that-

(1) are consistent with the strategic plan included in the
technological study performed by the Public Printer pursuant to
Senate Report 104-114;

(2) assure substantial progress toward maximum use of electronic
information dissemination technologies by all departments,
agencies, and other entities of the Government with respect to
the Federal Depository Library Program and information
dissemination generally; and

(3) are formulated so as to require that any department, agency,
or other entity of the Government that does not make such
progress shall bear from its own resources the cost of its
information dissemination by other than electronic means.

Appropriate sections from the House and Senate reports and from
Public Law
104-53 are included in this report as Attachment A.

The provision from Section 210 of Public Law 104-53 resulted in the
development and submission of the Electronic Federal Depository
Library
Program: Transition Plan, FY 1996 - FY 1998 (Transition Plan) with the
GPO
FY 1997 appropriations request. Public comments in response to the
Transition Plan led directly to the development of the Federal
Depository
Library Program: Information Dissemination and Access Strategic Plan,
FY
1996 - FY 2001 (Strategic Plan), included with this report as Exhibit 1.

The FDLP Study was concluded in March 1996, and a draft report
was
issued in order to provide an extended opportunity for public comment.
This document is the final report to Congress on the FDLP Study. In
order
to complete the study and prepare this report, it was necessary to
establish definitions to clarify the meaning of several important words
and
phrases. These definitions are provided on page v of this report.

II. METHODOLOGY

To implement the study, the Public Printer established a working
group
consisting of representatives from GPO, appropriate Congressional
committees, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA), the Federal Publishers Committee (FPC), the
Interagency Council on Printing and Publication Services (ICPPS), the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and the depository library
community. He also invited a number of organizations to identify
representatives to serve as advisors to the working group. A complete
roster of working group members, advisors and GPO support staff is
provided
as Attachment B.

Following the initial meeting of the working group, a number of
tasks
were identified to provide information and alternatives for
consideration.
These tasks included:

- A technical analysis by a Federally-funded research and
development
center (FFRDC) to determine the most cost-effective way to
provide electronic access through the FDLP;

- Identification of relevant laws, regulations, and policies regarding
Government information dissemination, and evaluation of agency
compliance in so far as they affect the FDLP;

- Identification, acquisition, and evaluation of available information
relevant to the study;

- Identification of current and ongoing electronic information
dissemination activities for the FDLP;

- Evaluation of incentives for publishing agencies to migrate from
print products to electronic format;

- Evaluation of current laws governing the FDLP and
recommendation of
any legislative changes necessary for a successful transition to
a more electronic program;

- A survey of Federal agencies to identify CD-ROM titles not
currently
included in the FDLP and reasons for both participation and
non-participation in the program;

- Case studies of specific Federal electronic dissemination
initiatives with respect to their costs, and impact on public
access to information through the FDLP in comparison with
present
methods of dissemination;

- Evaluation of issues pertaining to inclusion in electronic formats
of materials traditionally not included in the FDLP in either
paper or microfiche; and

- A review of Federal programs permitting or requiring the sale of
information to recover costs, and the effects on efforts to
assure free public access through the FDLP.

The complete task list which identifies task leaders and specific case
studies is included as Attachment C. Task force reports, including
reports
for each case study, were distributed to study participants and posted
electronically to major Government document listservs for public
comment.
Task leaders reviewed the comments received and, when appropriate,
incorporated these remarks into the final reports. The final task force
reports are included as Attachments D-1 to D-15.

At Congressional direction, the FFRDC technical analysis was
deferred
until the information gathering from the other study tasks could be
completed. The letter from the Joint Committee on Printing denying
the
initial GPO request for the FFRDC analysis is included as Attachment
D-1.
Task 2, which involved identification of laws, regulations, and policies
regarding Government information dissemination, resulted in the
compilation
of more than 400 pages of statutory text. Rather than include the
complete
text of this report, the index for this compilation is included as
Attachment D-2. Task 4, which identified current GPO electronic
initiatives, was accomplished through a series of demonstrations and
presentations given to working and advisory group members; therefore,
no
report for this task is included in the attachments.

III. PRINCIPLES FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

The FDLP Study brought together representatives from a variety of
organizations who share an interest in the continued dissemination of,
and
access to, Federal Government information through the Federal
Depository
Library Program. Despite differing viewpoints, agendas and
responsibilities, study participants did reach consensus on several basic
principles for Federal Government information. Over the years, these
principles have been expressed by a wide variety of organizations many
times and in many different ways. Last year, the National Commission
on
Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) republished its principles
for
comment in the June 9, 1995 issue of the Federal Register. The NCLIS
principles are included as Attachment E. The principles below, which
are
derived from the NCLIS principles, served as the underlying foundation
for
all study group discussion and activities.

Principle 1: The Public Has the Right of Access to Government
Information

A cornerstone of every democratic society is the public's right of
access to Government information. Open and uninhibited access to
Government information ensures that the public has the opportunity to
monitor and participate in the full range of Government activities. As
Thomas Jefferson said in 1816, "If we are to guard against ignorance
and
remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."
Access to Government information, except where restricted by law, is a
basic right of every American citizen. It should not be format
dependent,
nor should it be compromised by the imposition of excessive fees, time
delays or copyright-like restrictions imposed by the Government in a
manner
that hinders timely access, use or redissemination.

Principle 2: The Government Has an Obligation to Disseminate and
Provide
Broad Public Access to Its Information

The Government should not only allow public participation in the
democratic process by providing access to its information, but should
encourage public participation and use of Government information
through
proactive dissemination efforts that ensure timely and equitable public
access. This principle was the basis for the establishment of the Federal
Depository Library Program more than a century ago. It also is
supported
by hundreds of other Government statutes which prohibit the copyright
of
Federal information, mandate affirmative public dissemination of such
information and assign dissemination functions to a variety of Federal
agencies and Government-wide clearinghouses. This responsibility
entails
providing public access to Government information in such a way that
even
those citizens without special equipment or training can find, access,
and
use it. This principle covers access to both Government information
products and the underlying data from which they are created.

Principle 3: The Government Has an Obligation to Guarantee the
Authenticity and Integrity of Its Information

Government information is used in many ways, some of which affect
the
continued health and livelihood of the American public. Any
corruption of
Government information poses a serious and real threat to the common
good.
Therefore the Government has an obligation to protect its citizens by
guaranteeing to the maximum extent possible the authenticity and
integrity
of its information. Due to the ease in which it currently is possible to
manipulate electronic source files, the obligation to provide long range
assurances of authenticity will become increasingly important as more
Government information moves to electronic formats.

Principle 4: The Government Has an Obligation to Preserve Its
Information

Government information is part of our national heritage. It
documents
the fundamental rights of American citizens, the actions of Federal
officials in all three branches of our Government, and the
characteristics
of our national experience. Therefore, it is a Government obligation to
guarantee the preservation of Government information for future
generations
of Americans. This principle applies to Government information that
has
been determined to have sufficient historical value or that provides
significant evidence of the organizations, functions, policies, decisions,
procedures, operations or activities of the Government. Despite
changing
times and technologies, public access to these types of Government
information in a meaningful format must be maintained in perpetuity
to
ensure the continued accountability of the Government to its present
and
future citizens.

Principle 5: Government Information Created or Compiled by
Government
Employees or at Government Expense Should Remain in the
Public Domain

Except where exempted by law, Government information created or
compiled at Government expense or by Government employees as part
of their
official duties, regardless of the format in which it is published, is in
the public domain. The Government is precluded by 17 U.S.C. Chapter
1
from holding copyright protection for its published and/or unpublished
works. This prohibition on copyright should not be undermined by the
Government's imposition of copyright-like restrictions on the use or
reuse
of Government information, such as the imposition of royalties,
establishment of exclusive distribution arrangements, or denying timely
access to underlying data.

IV. MISSION AND GOALS FOR THE FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY
PROGRAM

MISSION: The mission of the Federal Depository Library Program is to
provide equitable, efficient, timely and dependable no-fee public
access to Federal Government information within the scope of the
program./1/

/1/ For purposes of this report, Government information is defined as
Government publications, or other Government information
products,
regardless of form or format, created or compiled by Government
employees, or at Government expense, or as required by law. The
scope
of the FDLP is Government information products, except those
determined
by their issuing agency to be required for official use only or for
strictly administrative or operational purposes which have no public
interest or educational value and information classified for reasons
of
national security. A more complete list of definitions begins on page
v at the front of this report.

The Government's transition to electronic dissemination requires
improving the way the Federal Depository Library Program operates,
redefining terms taken for granted in the print-on-paper publishing
environment, finding ways to use new technologies both to sustain and
increase the amount of information in the FDLP, and exploring new
methods
for the delivery of information in timely, useful formats. However, the
underlying mission of the program remains unchanged -- to provide
equitable, efficient, timely and dependable no-fee public access to
Federal
Government information products that fall within the scope of the
program.
Fulfilling this mission in the rapidly-changing world of electronic
information requires the renewed and expanded cooperation of Federal
publishers, the Government Printing Office, depository libraries, the
National Archives and Records Administration and other organizations
both
public and private that are committed to the dissemination of, and
public
access to, Government information.

The goals for an electronic FDLP reaffirm the traditional objectives
of the program with a new emphasis that reflects the increasing amount
of
Government information in electronic formats.

GOAL 1: Ensure that the public has equitable, no-fee, local public access
to Government information products through a centrally
managed,
statutorily authorized network of geographically-dispersed
depository libraries.

This includes ensuring that depository libraries provide public
access
workstations and the related services necessary to connect the public to
remotely accessible Government electronic information services and
sufficient to assure equitable access to that information.

GOAL 2: Use new information technologies to improve public access to
Government information and expand the array of Government
information products and Government electronic information
services made available through the FDLP.

This includes: (1) ensuring that Government information products
traditionally included in the FDLP in print or microform remain
available
through the FDLP when converted to electronic format by publishing
agencies; (2) converting appropriate Government information products
to an
electronic format when a suitable electronic format is not available
from
the publishing agency and conversion is a cost-effective means to
disseminate the information to depository libraries; and (3) acquiring,
or
obtaining access for depository libraries to, electronic Government
information products which have not been included in the FDLP in
print or
microform, but which can now be cost-effectively included through
remotely
accessible Government electronic information services.

GOAL 3: Provide Government information products in formats
appropriate to
the needs of users and the intended usage.

This includes establishing a reasonable number of standard formats
for
electronic information disseminated through the FDLP which
depository
libraries will be responsible for supporting.

GOAL 4: Enable the public to locate Government information regardless
of
format.

This includes: (1) participation in, and utilization of, the
Government Information Locator Service (GILS) and (2) development of
other
locator services tailored specifically to the needs of the FDLP.

GOAL 5: Ensure both timely, current public access and permanent,
future
public access to Government information products at or through
depository libraries, without copyright-like restrictions on the
use or reuse of that information.

This includes assuring to the maximum extent possible that all
Government information products within the scope of the FDLP,
regardless of
market value, are available for no fee public access through the FDLP.
Although it is recognized that private sector publishers and other
secondary disseminators of Government information will continue to
provide
high value, high interest information products, the purpose of the FDLP
is
to acquire and maintain access to the full range of Government
information
products within the scope of the program, without copyright-like
restrictions on the use or reuse of that information.

GOAL 6: Facilitate preservation of Government information through the
National Archives and Records Administration.

This includes the continued transfer to NARA of information
disseminated to depository libraries by GPO, as well as the initiation of
transfer to NARA of electronic information held by GPO for depository
library access.

GOAL 7: Ensure that the program is cost-effective for all parties
involved,
including Government publishing agencies, GPO, depository
libraries, and the public.

This includes a commitment to minimize costs to depository
libraries
as a result of changes in the FDLP in order to encourage continued
participation in the program and thereby assure broad public access to
Government information.

V. POLICY ISSUES THAT IMPACT PUBLISHING AGENCIES, GPO,
NARA, DEPOSITORY
LIBRARIES, THE PUBLIC, AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR

The issues summarized below were identified during the course of
the
study. Many of them are explained in greater detail, with examples and
alternative solutions, in the individual task force reports included as
Attachments D-1 to D-15.

ISSUE 1: Redefinition of Terms; Authenticity of Information.

The electronic publishing environment necessitates new definitions
of
terms such as "Government publication" to include "Government
information
product" and "Government electronic information service", as well as
new
means to identify and assure the authenticity of electronic Government
information.

A. The scope of Government information products included in the
FDLP,
and the criteria for excluding information products from the FDLP,
should
be reaffirmed through revision of 44 U.S.C. 1901 and 1902. These
sections should explicitly include all formats of Government
information,
including electronic information products. Since NARA accepts
dissemination through the FDLP as one criteria for identifying
information
for preservation, this also will serve to define a body of electronic
Government information products that should be transferred to NARA
by
GPO/2/ or the publishing agencies for preservation, notwithstanding its
continued availability through the FDLP.

/2/ Currently GPO transfers to NARA only that information over which
it has
physical custody, i.e. information disseminated to depository
libraries by GPO and information maintained at GPO for remote
access.
GPO can and will work with Federal publishing agencies to assure the
transfer to NARA of other information that is within the scope of the
FDLP, but never directly in the custody of GPO.

B. Means should be found to assure the authenticity of Government
information products in the FDLP, both for the current users and usage
and
for permanent public access and preservation. This may include the
utilization of "signatures" on electronic Government information
products
(files) and the

establishment of a unique and permanent name or identification
number for
each file that is constant throughout its life cycle. Authentication
efforts should assure the accuracy of the information content without
imposing barriers to use or reuse.

ISSUE 2: Changing Roles for FDLP Participants.

The focus of the FDLP is changing, with GPO providing more
electronic
access and less physical distribution, and depository libraries providing
connections to remotely accessible Government electronic information
services, rather than building collections in their own facilities.

A. The role of GPO, as the agency responsible for administration of
the FDLP, will include the establishment of official arrangements for
depository library access to information available directly from Federal
agencies or other organizations, with the appropriate provisions for
permanent access to and through the FDLP. This will assure that GPO,
and
the depository libraries, can rely on access through these distributed
sources, rather than collecting the information for a single, central
computer system operated by GPO or requiring libraries to maintain
extensive local collections of electronic Government information
products.

B. The role of depository libraries will include requirements to
serve as local providers of public access workstations and the related
services necessary to connect the public to remotely accessible
Government
electronic information services. This redefinition will result in
different types of resource and training requirements that the libraries
will have to meet in order to assure equitable access to Government
information.

C. Means should be found to assure that publishing agencies in all
three branches of the Federal Government provide notification to GPO,
as
the administrator of the FDLP, before they initiate, substantially
modify,
or terminate Government information products. This would include
notification of removal, or change of location, of information products
on
a Government electronic information service when availability through
that
service is the means by which the agency fulfills its FDLP
responsibilities. The Paperwork Reduction Act establishes a
notification
requirement for publishing agencies in the executive branch, but it does
not explicitly identify GPO as one of the entities that must be notified.
There is no comparable statutory requirement for notification of
affected
parties for legislative and judicial branch publishers. It is insufficient
to establish the obligation; there must be means to assure compliance if
the FDLP and other affected parties are to rely on this notification.

ISSUE 3: Permanent Access and Preservation.

The requirements for permanent access to and preservation of
electronic Government information products necessitate a reevaluation
of
the life cycle of that information. The best time to assure preservation
of official electronic Government information is at the time it is
prepared, when the originator can certify its authenticity.

For purposes of this report, "permanent access" means that
Government
information products within the scope of the FDLP remain available for
continuous, no fee public access through the program,/3/

/3/ In the case of tangible information products, permanent access
remains
a responsibility of regional depository libraries, while in the case of
remotely accessible information products, it is a responsibility of
GPO
to coordinate a distributed system that provides continuous,
permanent
public access through the FDLP.

and "preservation" means that official records of the Federal
Government,
which have been determined to have sufficient historical or other value
to
warrant being held and maintained in trust for future generations of
Americans, are retained by the National Archives and Records
Administration
(NARA).

A. NARA and GPO should establish an official relationship to assure
that electronic Government information products disseminated to
depository
libraries by GPO, or held by GPO for depository library access, are
transferred to NARA for preservation in formats acceptable to NARA./4/
Ideally, this should be done in a manner that meets the publishing
agencies' requirements for deposit with NARA, so that duplicative
preparation and transfer of such information is eliminated. Currently
GPO
transfers to NARA only that information over which it has physical
custody,
i.e. information disseminated to depository libraries by GPO and
information maintained at GPO for remote access.

/4/ The historical and future roles of GPO in the transfer of Government
information products to NARA for preservation are addressed in the
discussion of Goal 6 on page 21.

B. The requirement for permanent access at or through depository
libraries necessitates: (1) the creation of information in formats that
resist technological obsolescence due to software or platform
dependence;
and/or (2) the migration of the information to new media or new
formats.
In this context, migration means both: (1) the periodic refreshing or
transfer of Government information products from one medium to
another in
order to minimize loss of information due to physical deterioration of
storage media and (2) the reformatting of information to avoid
technological obsolescence due to software or platform dependence.

C. As the volume of electronic Government information products
increases, it is essential to collect more in-depth and concrete data on
the life cycle costs to the Government for creating, disseminating and
preserving them, to depository libraries for providing public access to
them, and to the public for using them.

ISSUE 4: Standards.

The requirements for timely access to current Government
information
products within the scope of the FDLP, and for permanent access to and
preservation of these products, necessitate the identification and
implementation of Government-wide standards for the creation and
dissemination of electronic Government information products./5/ Where
adequate standards do not already exist, standards must be developed
by and
for the agencies that create and disseminate the products.

/5/ The proposal for an Assessment of Standards for Creation and
Dissemination of Electronic Government Information is described on
page
28 in the Results and Conclusions.

A. Broad utilization of Standard Generalized Markup Language
(SGML)
in the preparation of Government information products will facilitate
the
exchange, dissemination and preservation of that information;
however, it
will take many years for this to be broadly accepted throughout the
Government.

B. GPO needs to establish a range of preferred file formats,
including SGML, for use in the FDLP and should recommend (but not
require)
that Federal publishing agencies use one of those formats when
submitting
electronic Government information products to GPO for FDLP
dissemination.
Whenever possible, open systems and formats compliant with Federal
Information Processing Standards (FIPS) and other national or
international
standards should be used to assure that the format of the information
is
not a barrier to FDLP or public use. Such standardization is essential
to
assure that depository libraries have the hardware, software and
training
necessary to assist the public in the utilization of information made
available through the FDLP.

C. When agencies cannot, or do not, use one of the preferred
formats,
GPO will need to convert agency supplied electronic Government
information
to one of the preferred formats if that is necessary to assure that the
information product is appropriate to the needs of users and the
intended
usage. The formats utilized for FDLP dissemination must be
appropriate for
the program's intended audience, representing a broad cross-section of
the
general public. If the format utilized by the publishing agency is not
suitable for public access through the FDLP, GPO should convert,
reformat
or scan the information product for distribution through the FDLP. For
example, depository libraries cannot have available the software for
every
word processor or desktop publisher used by a Government agency to
create
documents, so GPO might accept documents from agencies in a wide
variety of
formats and convert them into one or more standard formats for
depository
library access or distribution. This will not restrict creation or
dissemination by Federal agencies in the formats which they feel best
serve
their needs and those of their primary constituencies, but rather will
supplement agency dissemination efforts by assuring availability to a
wider
range of users through the FDLP.

D. Whenever possible, the standard formats utilized by the FDLP
should be platform independent and either non-proprietary or open in
order
to assure the widest possible use of the information and to avoid
copyright-like restrictions resulting from software licensing. For
example, the Government is distributing a significant amount of
information
using CD-ROM. Most CD-ROM titles include retrieval and display
software,
and often this software requires formatting the information in specific
ways that can only be accessed through that software. This imposes
copyright-like restrictions on those who want access to the underlying
data
and can preclude future use due to dependency on specific computer
operating systems or other technology that may become obsolete.

E. Where paper and microfiche are formats that do not face
technological obsolescence, many electronic information formats are
software or platform dependent, necessitating the periodic review and,
when
necessary, migration of that information to newer media and or
alternative
file formats. Creation in, and certification of, information in standard
formats that are not technologically dependent is the best way to assure
that Government information products remain permanently accessible
through
the FDLP and are preserved by NARA.

F. The use of standards in the preparation and dissemination of
Government information products also will facilitate incorporation in
value-added information products from the private sector and assure a
diversity of both public and private sources for Government
information.

ISSUE 5: Locator Services.

With the proliferation of remotely accessible Government electronic
information services, and the necessity to link or direct depository
libraries to those services, rather than duplicating them, the provision
of
comprehensive finding aids and indexing (locator) services is essential.
This includes full participation in and utilization of the Government
Information Locator Service (GILS), as well as development of other
locator
services tailored specifically to the needs of the FDLP.

ISSUE 6: Inclusion of Fee-Based Services in the FDLP.

The principles for Government information, and many of the laws
and
policies implementing them, recognize the need for assuring broad
access to
the public. The statute authorizing the FDLP specifically requires
no-fee
public access; however, this requirement is often in conflict with
statutes
establishing sales programs and fee-based Government electronic
information
services. Purchase of access to fee-based Government information
services
for the FDLP is one means to reduce this conflict. This would require
the
establishment of a basis for determining appropriate fees for depository
access and the restrictions, if any, that such services should be able to
place on access to the services. Another alternative would be for
Congress
to require publishing agencies operating under fee-based requirements
to
provide this information to the FDLP without charge. In either case,
such
access should not restrict the use and reuse of information provided to
the
public through the FDLP.

ISSUE 7: Avoidance of Copyright-Like Restrictions.

Government information must be available without copyright-like
restrictions to assure broad public access and a diversity of
dissemination
sources. When publishing agencies impose, or permit others to impose,
copyright-like restrictions on information created or compiled by
Government employees or at Government expense, the effect is to
restrict
public access to that information. This violates the intent, if not the
specific provisions, of the laws and policies precluding copyright on
Federal information, including the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB
Circular
A-130. Nevertheless, budget constraints, requirements for operating
cost-recovery information services, and other factors are encouraging
agencies to treat Government information as a commodity whose
economic
value can only be preserved by the imposition of such restrictions.
Excessive fees, exclusive arrangements, royalty fees, and restrictions on
the use or reuse of Government information are examples of
copyright-like
restrictions that must be avoided. The utilization of proprietary data
formats also may impose copyright-like restrictions by requiring users
to
obtain software licenses in order to access or reproduce the
information.

ISSUE 8: Incentives for Agency Compliance with FDLP Requirements.

GPO should inform publishing agencies of their obligations to the
FDLP. The Office of Management and Budget and the Congress should
assist
GPO in making sure that agencies understand the requirements for
participation in the FDLP and comply with them. GPO should have the
ability to offer incentives for participation and to assure publishing
agency compliance with statutory obligations to the FDLP.

VI. COMPARISON OF THE HISTORICAL FDLP WITH THE
ELECTRONIC FDLP AS
ENVISIONED IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN

The Federal Depository Library Program has been in existence for
more
than 150 years. The program has stood the test of time, providing
equitable, efficient, timely and dependable no-fee public access to
Federal
Government information products in print and microform, and more
recently
in electronic formats. It has proven to be a well-designed and
well-balanced program, with clearly defined roles and responsibilities
for
Federal agencies, GPO and the depository libraries. However, the
advent of
electronic dissemination has introduced a host of new problems and
concerns
unheard of, or less prevalent, in the print-based model of Government
information dissemination. This study is part of the process for
informing
the Congress about the issues and alternatives that should be
considered
for a successful transition to a more electronic FDLP.

As part of the study, a Strategic Plan was prepared to describe the
anticipated evolution of the program through FY 2001. This plan is
attached as Exhibit 1. This section of the report provides a comparison
of
the historical FDLP with the electronic FDLP as it is envisioned in the
Strategic Plan. The comparison is made in the context of how the
program
has met and will meet the goals presented in Section IV of this report.

Goal 1: Ensure that the public has equitable, no-fee, local public access
to Government information products through a centrally
managed,
statutorily authorized network of geographically-dispersed
depository libraries.

Historical Model

For more than a century, the Federal Depository Library Program has
served the Government and its citizens by providing a national network
of
libraries through which Government information is made available to
the
people of the United States, without geographic, economic or
administrative
barriers. The scope of the program as defined in 44 U.S.C. 1902
includes
all "publications except those determined by their issuing components
to be
required for official use only or for strictly administrative or
operational purposes which have no public interest or educational
value and
publications classified for reasons of national security."/6/

/6/ There is an additional exclusion in 44 U.S.C. 1903, based not on
the
content of Government information products, but on their source of
funding, for "so-called cooperative publications which must
necessarily
be sold in order to be self-sustaining."

There are currently 1,382 depository libraries located throughout the
country, one in almost every Congressional district, as well as in the
U.S.
territories and possessions. Designation of a depository library is made
by a Senator or Member of Congress or by law. Regardless of whether a
citizen lives in a poor district in the inner city, a wealthy suburb, or a
rural area, Government information products are accessible to each
citizen
at a depository library in the local area. Depository libraries are
required by 44 U.S.C. 1911 to make the publications distributed to
them
through the FDLP" available for the free use of the general public."

GPO delivers Government publications to depository libraries
primarily
in print and microfiche. However, an increasing number of
Government
information products are being distributed in both physical electronic
format, such as CD-ROM, and through Government electronic
information
services, such as GPO Access. Although the amount and type of
information
obtained through the FDLP and the type of facilities vary by depository,
traditionally the only equipment depository libraries needed to provide
equitable public access to non-print Government information products
was a
microfiche reader or reader/printer. This equipment is relatively
inexpensive and simple to operate, and microfiche does not require
special
training or expertise to use. In recent years, as CD-ROM discs have
become
a popular medium for the dissemination of Government information,
many
depository libraries have acquired computer workstations with
CD-ROM
drives, and some have even offered remote access to CD-ROM discs
through
their library networks. Currently 1,140 (83.1%) depository libraries
have
CD-ROM drives available for use with their Government information
collections./7/ A workstation equipped with a CD-ROM drive and a
printer is
more expensive than a microfiche reader/printer and requires additional
training and expertise, particularly given the wide variety of software
and
data formats used by Federal agencies in their CD-ROM publishing.

/7/ This information is based on data from the 1995 Biennial Survey of
Depository Libraries, with all but 10 libraries responses received. A
summary of the survey results is available as Attachment G.

Although the amounts and types of equipment vary by library, the
formats currently used for dissemination do not preclude depository
libraries from selecting the Government information products they feel
are
needed to best serve their communities. Under the traditional FDLP
model,
the only major resource limitations on depository selection of
Government
information products are available shelf space (or microfiche cabinets)
and
support staff./8/

/8/ Selection of information products available through Government
electronic information services is discussed in more detail under Goal
2 on page 14.

Strategic Plan

Congress has already authorized GPO to disseminate electronic
information to depository libraries through the GPO Access legislation
(44
U.S.C. 4101). Ensuring equitable public access in an electronic
dissemination environment will require two changes to the FDLP. The
first
involves reaffirmation that the scope of the program includes a
comprehensive range of publishing formats. The current scope of the
program refers to distribution of Government "publications." The term
"publications" implies information published in a static, physical
medium.
However, electronic information can be dynamic and changeable, and
often
does not lend itself to physical dissemination. Therefore, the Strategic
Plan proposes elimination of the term "publications" where it is used in
44
U.S.C. 1901 and 1902 to define the scope of the program and
substitution
of the more generic term "information products." This term
encompasses both
traditional products in physical formats and new electronic information
available through Government electronic information services./9/

/9/ A more complete list of definitions begins on page v at the front of
this report.

The second significant change will take place in the depository
libraries themselves. With the amount and type of electronic
information
in the program growing rapidly, it will be incumbent upon depository
libraries to expand their capabilities at a local level for public access
to remotely accessible Government electronic information services.
Despite
the increasing amount of Government information available for free
public
use on the Internet, studies have shown that a significant majority of
Americans still lack the necessary equipment, skills, or Internet
connections to access remote Government electronic information
services. A
recent Nielsen survey found that only 17 percent of the public has
access
to the Internet, whether at home, in the classroom, at the office or
through a friend's computer./10/ In addition, the complexity of the
distributed information environment has created new problems for the
public, eroding the ability of even experienced users to locate the
information they need. Depository libraries located in most
Congressional
districts can meet the needs of this large segment of the American
public
which has not yet acquired the equipment or expertise necessary to
locate
and access Government information directly from their home,
classroom, or
office.

/10/ The CommerceNet/Nielsen Internet Demographics Survey. [New
York]:
CommerceNet Consortium/Nielsen Media Research, 1995. [URL:
http://www.commerce.net/information/surveys/]

The Strategic Plan recognizes that in order to provide equitable
public access to Government information in an electronic environment,
depository libraries will have to accelerate their plans to obtain public
access computer workstations, and satisfy the demand for local printing
and
downloading. According to the 1995 Biennial Survey, only 32 percent
of
responding depositories currently provide the kind of robust
workstation
configuration necessary to provide equitable public access to
Government
information through the Internet./11/

/11/ More detailed information from the Biennial Survey is available as
Attachment G.

The Strategic Plan recognizes that in a more electronic FDLP, all
depository libraries will have to provide at least one public access
workstation with a graphical user interface, CD-ROM capabilities,
Internet
connections and the ability to access, download, and print extensive
products. In addition to hardware and software, depositories will need
to
provide assistance to patrons in the use of electronic Government
information products which employ a variety of search engines, user
interfaces, and software packages. These requirements are defined in
the
Recommended Minimum Specifications for Public Access Workstations
in
Federal Depository Libraries, which are scheduled to become
requirements
effective October 1, 1996, and are provided as Attachment H. Acquiring
this technical expertise and providing user support for electronic
depository collections will require additional depository training and
support staff. As a result, depository libraries will have to balance the
resource requirements necessary to support electronic information
products
with those necessary to provide access to the Government information
products in their print and microfiche collections.

The Strategic Plan also suggests that, in the transition of the FDLP
from a series of local repositories to a network of local access points,
many depositories may find that they lack the necessary public or
private
funding to achieve the minimal level of electronic capability they will
need. The plan proposes that GPO provide up to $25,000 per library in
technology grants to those depositories that demonstrate need and
stipulate
that no other public or private funding source is available for this
purpose. These would be one-time grants, available for a single year
and
totalling no more than $500,000 per year. In addition, the Strategic
Plan
envisions an expanded role for GPO in providing support services to
depositories including, but not limited to, locator services, user
support,
training, and documentation.

Goal 2: Use new information technologies to improve public access to
Government information and expand the array of Government
information products and Government electronic information
services made available through the FDLP.

Historical Model

As the primary provider of printing services for the Government,
GPO
is able to identify and acquire information for the FDLP when
publishing
agencies submit printing requisitions to GPO in the course of printing
or
contracting for the printing of their publications. The number of copies
needed for depository distribution is added to the agency's printing
requisition as a "rider." Therefore, GPO's integral role in the production
process has ensured that publications are identified and acquired for
the
FDLP, without agencies having to be aware of their obligations to the
program. With the vast amount of Government information products
flowing
through the GPO print production process, and thereby being acquired
for
the FDLP, expanding the array of Government information products
available
for public access was never a primary concern for the program.

In the historical model for the FDLP, paper was the primary format
used for dissemination of Government information. Advances in
printing
technology over the years have changed the production process for
Government publications, but they have not changed the way in which
Government information products are distributed or made available to
the
public through depository libraries. Before the advent of electronic
dissemination, the only technology that significantly impacted FDLP
dissemination was micrographics. The FDLP began using microfiche as
a
format for dissemination in the early 1970's. The use of micrographics
allowed GPO to distribute a slightly greater amount of material to
depositories at a significantly lower cost to the Government. No major
changes to the FDLP distribution system were needed because
microfiche was
a physical format. Depository libraries purchased microfiche readers or
reader/printers in order to provide public access to microfiche
information./12/ Depository library patrons could access the exact
graphical image of a printed publication simply by placing a sheet of
microfiche in the microfiche reader; therefore no special training or
user
support was needed to use information in this format.

/12/ While comparable in cost to public access workstations acquired for
the CD-ROM titles and other electronic Government information
products,
the microfiche equipment has a much longer useful life.

Due to the vast quantity of Government information products
disseminated through the program, and the physical limitations of
depository libraries for storing print and microfiche, the historical
model
for the FDLP necessitated a distinction between "selective" depository
libraries and "regional" depository libraries. Selective depositories
pre-select the type of publications they wish to receive based on the
specific needs and interests of the communities they serve. Fifty-three
"regional" depository libraries receive everything that is distributed
through the program. If users do not find the information they need at
a
selective depository library, they can arrange for an inter-library loan
from another depository that does elect to receive that information or
from
a regional library. While this is not as timely as on demand access from
an electronic information service, the delay is not so lengthy that it
significantly impedes public access.

Government information products in paper or microfiche are
available
at depository libraries for on-site use by members of the public. Users
can borrow material to read at home, in the classroom, or in the office,
or
they may elect to pay to copy or print it out in order have their own
copy.
When Government CD-ROM titles were included in the FDLP,
depository
libraries began to add public access workstations equipped with
CD-ROM
drives. Since the initiation of the GPO Access electronic information
services, authorized by 44 U.S.C. 4101, the public has had free use of a
variety of databases through public access workstations equipped for
Internet access. This was quickly expanded to offer users the option of
access from their home, classroom or office through one of several
depository library gateways or direct access from GPO.

Strategic Plan

The electronic Federal Depository Library Program as outlined in the
Strategic Plan will take advantage of the increasing amount of
Government
information available in electronic format to expand and enhance the
array
of Government information products available to the public. An
increasing
amount of Government information is available from agency publishers
in
electronic formats. This information falls into three categories: (1)
information products that are currently included in the FDLP in print,
but
not in electronic formats, (2) information products that previously were
included in the FDLP in print, but that are no longer included in the
program since the publishing agency converted to electronic
information
products, and (3) information products that have never been a part of
the
program for various operational or financial reasons. Often this
information is more timely, useful, and less expensive in electronic
format
than it is in print.

The Strategic Plan proposes four ways in which GPO can bring these
electronic information products into the FDLP:

- GPO can identify, describe and link the public to the wealth of
distributed Government information products maintained at
Government electronic information services for free public use.

- GPO can "ride" agency requisitions and pay for depository copies of
tangible electronic information products, such as CD-ROM discs,
even if they are not produced or procured through GPO.

- GPO can obtain from agencies electronic source files for
information
the agencies do not wish to disseminate through their own
Government electronic information services. These files can be
made available through the GPO Access services or disseminated
to
depository libraries in CD-ROM or other tangible format.

GPO's ability to provide timely and comprehensive access to
Government
electronic information products will be dependent on the receipt of
timely
notification from publishing agencies when they initiate, substantially
modify, or terminate an information product. Both the Paperwork
Reduction
Act and OMB Circular A-130 require executive agencies to provide such
notice to affected parties. The proposed revisions to 44 U.S.C. 1902
presented in the report for Task 6 (Attachment D-5) establish a specific
requirement for notification of GPO by all branches of Government.
The
proposal suggests the following language:

Agencies shall notify the Superintendent of Documents of their
intent
to initiate any Government information product and shall notify the
Superintendent of Documents at such time as they substantially
modify
or terminate a product available via a Government electronic
information service.

The task force report also proposes an addition to 44 U.S.C. Chapter 19
that would require agencies to provide the Superintendent of
Documents with
timely notice of any tangible electronic information product produced
or
procured outside of GPO, so that the Superintendent of Documents can
make
arrangements to ride the agency requisition for depository copies on an
incremental cost basis.

Several benefits will be realized from the inclusion of more
electronic information in the FDLP. When mounted to an online
service,
electronic information can be accessed simultaneously from multiple
sites
located across the country within minutes of its creation. This means
that
Government information products like agency press releases can be
made
accessible at or through depository libraries when public interest in the
information is at its peak, whereas previously weeks would pass before
the
printed press releases arrived in a depository shipment.

Another major benefit of electronic information is the ease in which
it can be manipulated and searched. Unlike paper or microfiche,
electronic
information is dynamic. For example, locating agency regulations on
toxic
waste management published in the paper Federal Register required a
user to
scan through indices and pages of text manually. This was a very
time-consuming and labor-intensive process. The same search on the
electronic Federal Register database can be done in seconds with a
simple
search that locates and ranks all references to toxic waste management
in
the Federal Register over a specified period of time. After viewing
relevant passages on the screen, the user can "paste" those passages of
text into word processing software, download and save the entire file
for
use at a later time, or print out selected pages.

Use of information technology not only will enhance public access to
Government information by improving its timeliness and utility to the
user,
but will make access to certain types of Government information more
widely
available. Currently, shelf and cabinet space restrict the amount and
type
of print and microfiche materials depository libraries select. As more
information is included in the FDLP through access to Government
electronic
information services, depository libraries will be able to access a wider
range of Government information products because the responsibility
for
providing access to the information will rest increasingly with
publishing
agencies and GPO, instead of with each individual library./13/

/13/ This does not mean that all of the information products provided to
GPO by agencies will be maintained at GPO. Some Government
information
products will be in facilities, such as depository libraries, that
establish contractual arrangements with GPO to house the
information
for depository library access. These alternatives are discussed more
fully under Goal 5.

The Strategic Plan notes that in FY 1997 depository libraries will be
required to meet minimum specifications for public access workstations
which include capabilities for accessing Government electronic
information
services./14/ This will mean that the full range of Government
information
products remotely accessible through the FDLP will be available for
public
use at or through any depository library within the next year. In
addition, users who have the necessary hardware, software and
expertise
will continue to access an expanding array of electronic information
available through the FDLP directly from their home, classroom or
office
using depository library gateways or by connecting to GPO electronic
information services directly.

/14/ The current requirements are provided in Attachment H:
Recommended
Minimum Specifications for Public Access Workstations in Federal
Depository Libraries. These specifications are revised periodically to
reflect changes in computer technology and software.

While every depository library will be able to access all of the
available remotely accessible Government electronic information
services,
each library will continue to determine the appropriate levels of service
for the various types of information. For example, a depository library
in
a law school will have public access workstations that can be used to
access remote scientific and technical information, but it is not likely to
offer any reference service to support the use of that information since
it
is outside of the scope of its collection and expertise. On the other
hand, a law library may offer substantially better assistance for legal
and
regulatory materials than a public library that has limited experience
with
this type of information.

GOAL 3: Provide Government information products in formats
appropriate to
the needs of users and the intended usage.

Historical Model

The historical model for the FDLP involved dissemination of
information primarily in two physical, static formats: paper and
microfiche. GPO also has distributed a substantial number of CD-ROM
titles
to depository libraries, and a limited number of videos, slides, and
floppy
diskettes. The CD-ROM discs have conformed to the international
standards
for CD-ROM media and file layout, but have presented a challenge to
the
libraries due to the wide range of retrieval software and file formats on
the discs. Depository libraries have had access to electronic files in a
variety of formats on the Federal Bulletin Board since 1992, including
ASCII text, various word processing files, dBase databases, Lotus 123
spreadsheets, PostScript files, and Adobe Acrobat Portable Document
Format
(PDF) files. GPO Access began providing depository libraries with
online
databases in 1994, offering the Congressional Record, the Federal
Register,
the Congressional Record Index and Congressional Bills. There are
now more
than 65 databases available online via GPO Access. All of the databases
from GPO Access are available as ASCII text files. ASCII files with a
print equivalent are also available as PDF files, with graphics
imbedded.
For databases without a print equivalent, graphics are provided as
individual Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) files, and the ASCII text
files
contain notations to identify each graphic.

Under the historical model for the FDLP, the availability of
electronic information has been used to supplement, but not replace,
dissemination of the same information in paper or microfiche.
Therefore,
while the Federal Bulletin Board and GPO Access online service are
heavily
used by depository libraries, 52% of depository libraries have not yet
registered for the Federal Bulletin Board and 40% indicated that they do
not yet offer GPO Access online databases./15/ The paper and microfiche
versions of the Federal Register and Congressional Record continue to
be
selected by more than 1,000 depository libraries.

/15/ This information is based on data from the 1995 Biennial Survey of
Depository Libraries, with responses received from all but 10
libraries. A summary of the survey results is available as Attachment
G.

The assessment of user needs and the intended usage of Government
information products is essential if GPO is to provide the information
in
formats that can be utilized by the public at or through depository
libraries. This is not a new goal, but rather the adaptation of
long-standing practices for electronic information dissemination. For
example, GPO has established criteria that control when a paper
document
can, or cannot, be converted to microfiche. If the intended use is "ready
reference" then it may need to remain in print; if it contains four-color
graphics that cannot be reproduced in microfiche without loss of
content,
then it remains in print. Similarly, the GPO Access legislation requires
GPO to create electronic information services, and that clearly includes
designing databases. GPO Access has certain capabilities, and GPO has
established certain "standard" ways of displaying and tagging
information.
Within those constraints, GPO designs its databases in consultation
and
cooperation with the publishing agencies. However, the FDLP is the
primary
customer for GPO Access, and that requires GPO to consider depository
needs, as well as agency preferences, when selecting and designing
databases.

Strategic Plan

In the future, Federal agencies will continue to have a number of
publishing alternatives available for their needs, and many Government
information products will continue to be printed. However, it is
expected
that electronic formats will become the Federal publishing media of
choice,
and virtually every printed publication will have an electronic
counterpart. Unfortunately, at present no Government-wide standard
formats
have been established for electronic information, although GPO
currently
uses a few "preferred" formats for electronic source files, including
ASCII, dBase, PDF, PostScript and Standard Generalized Markup
Language
(SGML). The Strategic Plan suggests that the identification of standard
formats be determined through an assessment of standards for creation
and
dissemination of electronic Government information products./16/ The
assessment would be a joint project between GPO and NCLIS.

/16/ This assessment replaces the Technical Implementation Assistance
proposed in the draft FDLP Study Report. The assessment is
described
in more detail on page 26 in the section on Results and Conclusions.

Following successful completion of the assessment, GPO will make
every
reasonable effort to provide meaningful public access to Government
electronic information by converting, repackaging or scanning
agency-produced information products for distribution or access
through the
FDLP in one of the standard formats identified by the assessment as
being
useful and cost-effective. This will not restrict Federal agencies from
creating or disseminating information in any format that suits their
own
needs and mission, but rather, will supplement existing agency
dissemination efforts (often tailored to the needs of specific
constituencies) and assure broad public access. Regardless of which
formats ultimately are utilized, GPO will continue to provide a text-only
interface for its online databases in order to maintain compliance with
the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and to assure access to users
with
limited technological and communication capability. As of December
1995,
40% of the use of the GPO Access databases was through the Simple
WAIS
(SWAIS) text-based interface. While this percentage is declining, there
is
still a substantial requirement for this type of access.

GOAL 4: Enable the public to locate Government information regardless
of
format.

Historical Model

Historically, GPO has facilitated the identification and location of
Government information through its Cataloging and Indexing Program
(CIP).
This program is authorized by 44 U.S.C. 1710 and 1711. GPO's
statutory
mission is to provide bibliographic control for all Government
documents.
GPO fulfills this mission by preparing, publishing, and distributing the
Monthly Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (Monthly Catalog)
and a
comprehensive index of public documents at the close of each regular
session of

Congress. A complete and authoritative description for each
Government
information product is prepared by GPO in accordance with nationally
accepted cataloging standards and practices. The Monthly Catalog and
other
finding aids are used by depository librarians to help the public identify
Government information.

Electronic access to the Monthly Catalog has been available through
the GPO Web site since June 1995. Records in the Monthly Catalog
database
are linked to depository item selection, so a user can identify a
Government information product in the database and then locate
nearby
depository libraries that have that product available for public use.
This
is part of GPO's implementation of the requirement for an electronic
directory, or locator service, under the GPO Access legislation (44
U.S.C.
4101).

GPO has been cataloging Federal CD-ROM titles for inclusion in the
Monthly Catalog for several years. Recently titles on Government
electronic information services also have been included in the CIP.
GPO
continues to be an active participant in the Government Information
Locator
Service (GILS) initiative, serving in the GILS advisory group and acting
as
the host for the GILS records of approximately 25 agencies.

Strategic Plan

The Strategic Plan recognizes that meaningful public access will be
possible only if GPO continues to develop appropriate finding aids to
assist depository libraries and the public in identifying information
available from the Government, regardless of its format or location.
Therefore, the plan proposes that GPO accelerate development of
Pathway
locator services (Pathway). These services will use advanced indexing,
search, and retrieval tools to identify, describe, and link users to
electronic Government information, whether it is held by GPO or at
other
sites. Pathway will be developed using open systems standards and will
be
compatible with complementary initiatives such as the GILS.

GPO intends to provide records in machine-readable cataloging
(MARC)
format, following the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd Edition
(AACR2),
for all appropriate Government information products, whether in
physical
format or available through Government electronic information
services.
GPO cataloging will continue to emphasize information products which
are
not brought under bibliographic control by another Government
agency. GPO
cataloging records that include references to electronic information
products available from Government Internet sites will include the
Uniform
Resource Locator (URL). The URL will be displayed in the Monthly
Catalog
records at the GPO Web site, and will be "hot linked" to the actual
electronic content.

Historical Model

For more than a century, information delivery through the FDLP has
been a linear model: a chain beginning with the publishing agency,
linking
through GPO and the depository libraries and ultimately reaching the
public. Responsibility for public access in the historical model
correlates directly to the actual creation, transfer and possession of
physical information products. Publishing agencies are responsible for
the
collection of data and the creation of information products. GPO
acquires
the information through the print production process, determines
independently of the publishing agency whether to distribute the
information in paper or microfiche, and ships authentic Government
publications to depository libraries. Depository libraries assume
custody
of the information upon receipt and then are responsible for processing
and
storing the Government publications for no-fee public access, use, and
reuse without copyright restrictions.

As required by law, selective depository libraries hold the
information they receive for at least five years. Fifty-three regional
depository libraries hold all Government publications distributed to
them
through the FDLP, except superseded publications or those issued later
in
bound form, in perpetuity./17/ This means that Government
information
products published today will be available for the researcher, scholar,
or
student a hundred years from now, just as documents dating back to
the
Civil War are available to the public through depository libraries today.
Government information products available through the FDLP are free
from
copyright and can be used or redisseminated by the public as it so
chooses.

/17/ Permanent access is required by 44 U.S.C. 1911: "Depository
libraries not served by a regional depository library, or that are
regional depository libraries themselves, shall retain Government
publications permanently in either printed form or in microfacsimile
form, except superseded publications or those issued later in bound
form which may be discarded as authorized by the Superintendent of
Documents."

Strategic Plan

The Strategic Plan proposes a new FDLP model that allows the
traditional partners in the program to interact in new ways and which
defines the various partners in the process by the services they provide
rather than by the actions they perform. Publishing agencies, GPO, and
depository libraries will be expected both to perform their current
functions and assume new responsibilities that were previously the sole
province of one of the other partners in the FDLP model.

Agencies will remain responsible for the collection of data and the
creation of information products. According to the Strategic Plan, the
next step in the process will involve proactive negotiation and
coordination between GPO and the issuing agencies regarding
appropriate
formats for immediate and permanent public access and custody of the
information./18/ The issuing agency will determine the format used in
the
dissemination of the information for their own purposes and for
dissemination to depository libraries when depository access is
provided
directly through the agency's own site. When agencies choose to
transfer
their electronic information to GPO for the FDLP, GPO will determine
the
most appropriate format for dissemination or access, as authorized
under 44
U.S.C. 1914, which says that GPO can determine the "measures [it]
considers necessary for the economical and practical implementation of
[the
Federal Depository Library Program]."

/18/ For purposes of this report, permanent access means that
Government
information products within the scope of the FDLP remain available
for
continuous, no fee public access through the program.

Previously these measures were limited by the number of formats
available for dissemination. However, information technology now
provides
GPO with a wide range of dissemination options, many of which will
cast GPO
in the roles of disseminating agent and "publisher" of Government
information products. For example, an agency might issue weekly press
releases through its own Internet site. At the end of each year it might
remove these releases from the agency site and pass them to GPO for
permanent access through the FDLP. Instead of remounting the
releases to
the Internet through GPO Access, GPO may decide it is more
economical to
pack and publish the press releases on a CD-ROM for distribution to
depository libraries. In this context, although the agency is still
responsible for the information content, GPO acts as the publisher of a
Government information product through its creation and production
of this
annual compilation.

In the historical model, information products would move forward
through distribution channels to the point of access, depository
libraries,
where they would ultimately reside for both immediate and permanent
public
access. In the new FDLP model, forward movement of information
products
can stop at any one of the points in the dissemination process: the
point
of creation (the issuing agency), the point of coordination (GPO), or the
point of local access (depository library). Nor will Government
information products always reside at the same location both for
immediate
and permanent access. Some agencies may decide to fulfill their
obligations for public and depository access through their own
electronic
information services for the short term, only to pass responsibility for
the information on to GPO for permanent access through the FDLP.
Under
other partnering arrangements, depository libraries may accept
responsibility for permanent public access to some types of Government
information products. The party that retains physical custody of the
information for on demand depository access will be responsible for the
information's authenticity, storage and maintenance. Using GPO
sponsored
finding aids, depository libraries will have to assist members of the
public in determining at which point(s) in the new FDLP model the
Government information product relevant to their needs resides,
whether it
was published ten days or ten years ago.

As with the historical model, any Government information product
provided to the public under the auspices of the FDLP will remain free
of
copyright or copyright-like restrictions, regardless of its format or
physical location. For example, the report on Task 9 (Attachment D-11)
describes one alternative by which GPO would negotiate an agreement
to
purchase access for depository libraries when agency information is
available electronically for a fee. The alternative states that "the
agreement may include limitations on numbers of users or on remote
access
via library networks, but will not include any copyright-like restrictions
on the use or reuse of the information." Unfortunately, there are
instances
when copyright-like restrictions cannot be avoided. For example, many
of
the CD-ROM titles distributed to the depository libraries include
retrieval
and display software that format the information in specific ways that
can
only be accessed through that software. This imposes copyright-like
restrictions on those who want access to the underlying data and can
preclude future use due to dependency on specific computer operating
systems or other technology that may become obsolete. GPO will not
refuse
to accept such CD-ROM titles for depository distribution, but GPO will
continue to work with publishing agencies to encourage publication in a
manner that avoids copyright-like restrictions.

GOAL 6: Facilitate preservation of Government information through the
National Archives and Records Administration.

Historical Model

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is the
repository for the preservation of the Government's permanent records.
These are records that have been appraised by NARA as having
sufficient
historical or other value to warrant continued preservation beyond the
time
they are needed for administrative, legal, or fiscal purposes./19/ No
more
than 5 percent of the records created by the Federal Government fall
into
this very select category, but this has traditionally included all formal
publications of Federal agencies.

/19/ For purposes of this report, preservation means that official records
of the Federal Government, including Government information
products
made available through the FDLP, which have been determined to
have
sufficient historical or other value to warrant being held and
maintained in trust for future generations of Americans, are retained
by the National Archives and Records Administration.

In addition to any agency transfer of publications, NARA accepts for
deposit from GPO one copy of every publication cataloged through the
Cataloging and Indexing Program and/or distributed by GPO through
the
Federal Depository Library Program. GPO transfers a full collection to
NARA after the completion of each four-year Presidential term. These
procedures have resulted in the granting of preservation status within
NARA
to all Government information products in the CIP or FDLP as part of
the
definitive official collection of U. S. Government publications. At
present this status is extended to all paper and microfiche publications
and to all electronic products that are in formats acceptable to NARA
for
archival purposes (36 CFR 1228.188). Recently NARA has begun to
accept for
reference purposes only, without accessioning for preservation,
CD-ROM
discs and other electronic products that are software dependent and,
therefore, not in archival format./20/

/20/ NARA accepts such materials for reference purposes only and
maintains
them for public use so long as the technology and software permit.
However, NARA does not take extraordinary measures to ensure
long-term
access or preservation of the content, and such a transfer does not
meet the publishing agency's obligation for transfer of the
information
to NARA for preservation.

Strategic Plan

GPO will continue to transfer to NARA a collection of the
information
it disseminates to depository libraries or holds for depository library
access. Whenever possible, electronic information will be transferred to
NARA in formats acceptable for archival purposes. When that is not
possible, GPO will continue to provide NARA with copies for reference
purposes. Ideally, legislative or regulatory changes could be made so
that
transfers from GPO to NARA in suitable archival formats can be
recognized
as meeting publishing agencies' archival requirements with respect to
NARA.
This would eliminate duplicative preparation, transfer and accessioning
of
such information. Transfer of depository material to NARA will not
preclude continued maintenance of the information by, or under the
authority of, GPO for permanent access through the FDLP.

GOAL 7: Ensure that the program is cost-effective for all parties
involved,
including Government publishing agencies, GPO, depository
libraries, and the public.

Historical Model

The FDLP exemplifies how a Federal program can provide an
essential
public service with a modest investment that is returned many fold by
the
participation of partners in the communities that benefit from the
service.
In this instance, the partner libraries share the responsibilities and the
costs to assure broad public access to Government information
products in
their local communities.

In the traditional FDLP model, there are a variety of costs associated
with providing public access to Government information products. The
Government bears only a small portion of these costs when it pays for
the
printing, distribution, and cataloging of publications and information
products to depository libraries. The division of production costs for
depository copies of Government print publications is clearly defined in
44
U.S.C. 1903. It states that:

The cost of printing and binding those publications distributed to
depository libraries obtained elsewhere than from the Government
Printing Office, shall be borne by components of the Government
responsible for their issuance; those requisitioned from the
Government Printing Office shall be charged to appropriations
provided
the Superintendent of Documents for that purpose.

The division of production costs for electronic information products are
not specifically addressed in 44 U.S.C. Chapter 19 because these costs
are
not associated with "printing and binding." However, GPO handles the
replication of CD-ROM discs, and the payment for software licenses
associated with CD-ROM titles, in a manner consistent with this
provision.

Most of the material distributed to depository libraries in print and
microfiche is produced or procured by Federal agencies through GPO.
The
centralized production and distribution of depository materials through
GPO
offers significant economies of scale. For example, in FY 1995 GPO
distributed

more than 16.7 million copies of 44,734 different titles, at an average
cost of $1.36 per copy. Centralized funding of the FDLP also facilitates
Congressional oversight of the program, thereby deterring misuse or
mismanagement of appropriated funds.

Depository libraries, composed of both public and private
institutions, bear the bulk of the costs for public access to Government
information. They supply the funds for the processing, use, storage and
housing of depository information products. This includes providing
support staff, facilities, equipment, and telecommunications.
Depository
libraries typically spend three to five times the dollar value of the
Government information products they receive in support of public
access to
their depository collections./21/

/21/ Robert E. Dugan and Ellen M. Dodsworth, "Costing Out a
Depository
Library: What Free Government Information?" Government
Information
Quarterly, Volume 11, Number 3 (1994), pages 261-284.

Strategic Plan

GPO and other study participants have noted that there is a need for
more in-depth and concrete data on the life cycle costs to the
Government
for creating, disseminating and providing permanent access to its
information products, to depository libraries for providing public
access
to them, and to the public for using them. However, the transition to
electronic dissemination of Government information is still in its early
stages, so it is doubtful that reliable and conclusive data on life cycle
costs could be gathered in this rapidly-evolving period. Nevertheless,
the
assessment of standards proposed in this report is an essential first
step
toward the ultimate goal of collecting and analyzing information life
cycle
costs. It will provide a basis for further consultation with the library
community and for discussions with publishing agencies concerning the
appropriate standards for cost-effective dissemination of Government
information products in formats appropriate to the needs of users and
the
intended usage.

There is no doubt that the transition to electronic dissemination of
Government information products changes the costs associated with
the
administration of, and participation in, the FDLP. Based on the limited
data that currently is available concerning life cycle costs, the Strategic
Plan outlines a new direction for the program that looks to balance
dissemination based on paper and microform with that based on
electronic
information products, while seeking to maintain a reasonable
distribution
of costs among publishing agencies, the Government Printing Office,
depository libraries and the public.

In some instances, the transition to electronic dissemination will
provide savings for one of these parties at the price of incurring new
costs for another, thus shifting costs between the parties involved
rather
than reducing costs overall. One example of this shift is the costs
associated with providing permanent access to electronic Government
information products for public use. In the historical model, the
primary
cost incurred by regional depository libraries for permanent access to
print publications was providing adequate storage space. In the
electronic
environment, information can be stored more easily and cost-effectively
on
a computer. However, unlike physical print products that remain
relatively
stable over long periods of time, electronic information must be
migrated
to new and different media to prevent deterioration, avoid
technological
obsolescence, and assure information integrity and quality.

This migration requires significant financial resources which,
according to the Strategic Plan, are costs for ensuring permanent public
access to Government information products that the Government
Printing
Office and Federal publishing agencies, as well as those depository
libraries that choose to act as their partners, will share./22/ Costs for
migration can be minimized by the adoption and use of open systems
standards through the entire life cycle of information products--from
the
time the original source files are created by the publishing agencies to
final preservation by NARA. At the same time, depository libraries and
their users will have to pay to print, or purchase printed copies of,
information that is needed in print, but no longer disseminated in that
format through the FDLP.

/22/ For purposes of this report, migration means both: (1) the periodic
refreshing or transfer of Government information products from one
medium to another in order to minimize loss of information due to
physical deterioration of storage media and (2) the reformatting of
information to avoid technological obsolescence due to software or
platform dependence.

The Strategic Plan proposes retention of the current level of FDLP
funding through the GPO Salaries and Expenses (S&E) appropriation.
According to the plan, with adequate agency notification, GPO will
continue
to "ride" and pay for depository copies for tangible electronic
information
products, whether or not they are produced or procured through GPO.
In
addition, Task 9 (Attachment D-11), Task 10A (Attachment D-14) and
Task 10B
(Attachment D-15) all discuss alternatives through which GPO would
purchase
access to agency electronic information services when an agency is
required
by law to recover costs for such services. In such scenarios, there will
be no copyright-like restrictions on the use or reuse of the information
content, but gateway access to the fee-based information services
through
depository libraries may be restricted or prohibited in order to
safeguard
the publishing agencies' ability to recover operating costs. Publishing
agencies also will be able to transfer to GPO information for which they
can no longer support public access on their own electronic information
services. GPO will pay to mount, convert and maintain this
information on
GPO Access for permanent public access or to convert it to CD-ROM or
another tangible format for distribution to depository libraries. GPO
also
may establish partnerships with depository libraries to retain and
provide
permanent public access to certain types of information. This range of
funding options will make electronic dissemination through the FDLP
cost-effective for publishing agencies.

GPO will realize savings from a reduction in printing and
distribution
costs associated with the paper and microfiche versions of products it
makes available electronically through the FDLP. Funding estimates for
the
next three to five years indicate that these savings will be sufficient to
cover most of the costs for the transition to a more electronic FDLP.
Although no one can accurately project today the long-term costs for
maintaining permanent access to the electronic information through
the
FDLP, the assumption remains that new technology will provide more
efficient and effective means to disseminate and access this information
in
the future.

The report on Task 10B (Attachment D-15) provides one example of
savings that can be projected for the next few years. Providing access to
MEDLINE and eliminating paper distribution of just three NLM
products to
depository libraries could result in annual savings to GPO of more than
$338,000, less whatever amount would be paid to NLM for depository
access.
Similarly, if GPO eliminated paper distribution of the Congressional
Serial
Set to selective depository libraries and replaced it with a quarterly
CD-ROM as discussed in the report on Task 8B (Attachment D-8), the
agency
could realize cost savings of more than $1 million. However, a
CD-ROM
version of the Serial Set is feasible only if Congress requires that the
component Documents and Reports that are not typeset at GPO be
provided to
GPO in usable electronic format. Currently up to 80% of the documents
and
20% of reports are received by GPO as camera copy. Scanned images
created
from the camera copy are not consistently searchable and create large
files
with low resolution quality.

There is no conclusive data at this time to support the assertion that
electronic dissemination will always save the Government money. As
shown
in the report on Task 8A (Attachment D-7), there will be times when the
cost to the Government for providing permanent public access to
electronic
Government information products exceeds the one-time costs
associated with
producing and distributing the same information in print or microform.
However, as explained above, there are many instances when
dissemination is
more cost-effective in electronic format than in paper or microfiche, and
even more instances where the information is more timely and/or more
useful. The more electronic FDLP as proposed in the Strategic Plan will
seek to identify and cultivate those instances when information
technology
can be used to save the Government money and to enhance and expand
public
access.

Depository libraries will realize cost savings through the reduction
in the number of Government information products that they must
house and
maintain. For example, whereas depository libraries once had to have
several shelves of space for the United States Code in print, this same
information now is available on a single CD-ROM or online from GPO
Access.
However, depository libraries will incur new costs for ongoing
acquisition
and upgrade of software and computer systems, specialized training for
staff, and connections to telecommunications networks./23/

/23/ While the initial costs for a well-equipped public access
workstation
are comparable to those for a microfiche reader/printer, the personal
computer technology is changing rapidly, forcing frequent
replacement
or upgrading of equipment and software.

The Strategic Plan suggests several ways in which GPO can ease the
financial burden of the transition on depository libraries. One of these
is the establishment and promotion of a limited range of standard
formats
for FDLP use. This will minimize the costs to depository libraries by
reducing the range of platforms and software that the libraries must
acquire and support. An assessment to determine appropriate and
cost-effective standards for the creation and dissemination of
Government
information products will be accomplished through a joint project
involving
GPO and NCLIS. The Strategic Plan also proposes that GPO provide
$500,000
in assistance to financially needy depository libraries through one-time
technology grants of up to $25,000 per library in FY 1997. In addition,
the Strategic Plan proposes in FY 1997 an increase of $20,000 in the
statutory limit on Salaries and Expenses Appropriation (S&E) travel
and
reallocation of a substantial portion of the funds currently used for
library inspections in order for GPO to devote additional resources for
training and continuing education opportunities for depository
librarians.

GPO will continue to monitor the technological capabilities of the
depository libraries to provide cost-effective public access to electronic
Government information products, particularly as it relates to
standards
utilized by agencies in the creation and dissemination of electronic
Government information products. This will include gathering
information
about the costs of equipment, telecommunications, software, staff
training
and other depository library expenses for accessing and utilizing
electronic Government information products through the FDLP.

Users can browse Government information products in any
depository
library without charge and, in some libraries, users can check out books
or
CD-ROM titles for short term use at home, in the classroom, or in the
office./24/ Currently most users must pay to photocopy documents in
depository libraries or to print images from microfiche if they wish to
obtain their own copies of Government information products.
Electronic
Government information products may increase the costs to users as
fewer
items are available for reading in the library without the necessity of
paying to print the information first or to obtain diskettes on which to
download and save electronic information for later use. Limitations on
the
time that an individual user can spend at a public access workstation
are
common and restrict the user's ability to browse Government
information
products at the computer terminal. These limitations, and delays when
a
workstation is not available, cost users both time and money. For this
reason, GPO also will begin to monitor the costs to users for printing,
downloading and similar services using depository library equipment.

/24/ Loan policies vary from library to library. Many depository
libraries
lend Government documents, and some lend CD-ROM titles.

Finally, while computer literacy is increasing dramatically, many
depository library users are not yet conversant with computer
technology or
are frustrated by the variety of software they must master to utilize
electronic Government information. This lack of computer skills delays
the
user's access to the information and requires additional assistance from
library staff.

VII. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

A substantial amount of useful information was gathered and
numerous
issues and alternatives were identified and examined during the course
of
the study. These are summarized in this report. A number of specific
tasks were identified to provide information and alternatives for
consideration. The preparation of the task force reports and the review
of
public comments resulting from their dissemination was the primary
fact-finding activity of the study. Each task force report is included as
an attachment and is the product of a substantial amount of effort on
the
part of the task leader and participants.

- GPO can identify, describe and link the public to the wealth of
distributed Government information products maintained at
Government electronic information services for free public use.

- GPO can "ride" agency requisitions and pay for depository copies of
tangible electronic information products, such as CD-ROM discs,
even if they are not produced or procured through GPO.

- GPO can obtain from agencies electronic source files for
information
the agencies do not wish to disseminate through their own
Government electronic information services. These files can be
made available through the GPO Access services or disseminated
to
depository libraries in CD-ROM or other tangible format.

Section V, Policy Issues that Impact Publishing Agencies, GPO,
NARA,
Depository Libraries, the Public and the Private Sector, summarizes the
major issues identified in the course of the study process. While many
of
these issues are not new, this study has examined the issues in the new
context of the rapid shift of the FDLP into a more electronic program.

The major conclusions of the study are summarized below:

Permanent Access to Authentic Information: The FDLP has the
responsibility
for providing permanent public access to the official Government
information products disseminated through the program./25/
Historically,
permanent access has been the role of the regional depository libraries,
and this has been a cost-effective means of ensuring that Government
information products remained available to the public indefinitely.
Permanent access also is an essential element of the electronic
depository
library program, but it will be more difficult to attain. To ensure
permanent public access to official electronic Government information
products, all of the institutional program stakeholders (information
producing agencies, GPO, depository libraries and NARA) must
cooperate to
establish authenticity, provide persistent identification and description
of Government information products, and establish appropriate
arrangements
for its continued accessibility. This includes identification and
implementation of standard formats for FDLP dissemination/26/ and
providing
for the technological currency of the electronic information products
available at GPO for remote access. In the case of tangible information
products, permanent access will remain a responsibility of regional
depository libraries, while in the case of remotely accessible
information
products, it will be the responsibility of GPO, as the administrator of
the
FDLP, to coordinate a distributed system that provides continuous,
permanent public access.

/25/ Permanent access is required by 44 U.S.C. 1911: "Depository
libraries not served by a regional depository library, or that are
regional depository libraries themselves, shall retain Government
publications permanently in either printed form or in microfacsimile
form, except superseded publications or those issued later in bound
form which may be discarded as authorized by the Superintendent of
Documents."

/26/ Additional conclusions related to the requirement for assessment of
standards for creation and dissemination of electronic Government
information products are provided on the next page.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A: Legislative Requirements for the FDLP Study

Attachment B: Roster of Working Group Members, Advisors and Staff

Attachment C: List of Tasks

Attachment D: Task Force Reports
D-1 Task 1: Technical Analysis by a Federally-Funded Research and
Development Center
D-2 Task 2: Identification of Relevant Laws, Regulations and
Policies Regarding Government Information Dissemination
D-3 Task 3: Bibliography of Information Relevant to the FDLP
Study
D-4 Task 5: Evaluation of Incentives for Publishing Agencies to
Migrate from Print Products to Electronic Format
D-5 Task 6: Evaluation of Current Laws Governing the Federal
Depository Library Program and Recommendation of Legislative
Changes
D-6 Task 7: Survey of Federal Agencies to Identify CD-ROM Titles
Not Currently Included in the Federal Depository Library Program
D-7 Task 8A: Case Study on Congressional Bills
D-8 Task 8B: Case Study on the Congressional Serial Set
D-9 Task 8C: Case Study on the Department of Energy (DOE)
Research
Reports
D-10 Task 8D: Case Study on the Office of Technology Assessment
(OTA) Reports
D-11 Task 9: Evaluation of Inclusion in Electronic Formats of
Materials Not Traditionally
Included in the FDLP in Either Paper or Microfiche
D-12 Task 9A: Case Study on Securities and Exchange Commission
EDGAR
Data
D-13 Task 9B: Case Study on Federal District and Circuit Court
Opinions D-14 Task 10A: Case Study on STAT-USA Services
D-15 Task 10B: Case Study on the National Library of Medicine
MEDLINE Service

Attachment E: National Commission on Libraries and Information
Science
(NCLIS) Principles of Public Information

Attachment F: Title 44 United States Codes Chapter 19--Depository
Library
Program

Attachment G: Summary of the Results of the 1995 Biennial Survey of
Federal Depository Libraries

Attachment H: Recommended Minimum Specifications for Public
Access
Workstations in Federal Depository Libraries

Attachment I: Comments from U.S. Senators

Attachment J: Minutes from Meeting of Working Group and Advisors,
April
18,1996

Attachment K: Comments from the Depository Library Council to the
Public
Printer

Attachment L: Comments from the Information Industry Association

Attachment M: Comments from the Library Associations

Attachment N: Comments from the National Commission on Libraries
and
Information Science

Attachment A:

Legislative Requirements for the FDLP Study

Attachment A

Legislative Requirements for the FDLP Study

[This information was downloaded from legislative databases online
via GPO
Access.]

Senate Report 104-114 on H.R. 1854; FY 1996 Legislative Branch
Appropriations (Pages 48-49)

Public access to Government information is a basic right of every
American citizen. The Committee recognizes the critically important
service that the Government Printing Office and participating libraries
in
the Federal Depository Library Program provide to citizens throughout
the
country in furnishing timely, equitable access to Government
information.
The dramatic advances in technology provide new opportunities for
enhancing
and improving public access. However, the increasing utilization of
electronic technologies in support of dissemination programs by all
branches of government requires careful analysis, planning, and
probable
restructuring of the current program. Without this analysis, planning,
and
a strongly coordinated effort, improvements to the program will be
delayed,
costly, and very well may compromise the public's right to Government
information. The Committee believes the planning should incorporate
the
goals of equitable, efficient, timely, and dependable access to
Government
information. The Committee supports a strong coordinated effort
between
the respective oversight and appropriation committees, the Government
Printing Office, executive branch agencies, participating depository
libraries, and other relevant and appropriate organizations. To this
end,
the Committee directs the Public Printer to initiate a study, under the
direction of the Committee, that: --Examines the functions and services
of
the Federal Depository Library Program; --Surveys current technological
capabilities of the participating libraries in the Federal Depository
Library Program; --Surveys current and future information
dissemination
plans of executive branch agencies; --Examines and suggests
improvements
for agency compliance of relevant laws, regulations, and policies
regarding
Government information dissemination; --Identifies measures that are
necessary to ensure a successful transition to a more electronically
based
program; --Identifies the possible expansion of the array of Federal
information products and services made available to participating
libraries; and --Ensures the most cost-efficient program to the taxpayer.
The study shall include a strategic plan that will assist the Congress in
redefining a new and strengthened Federal information dissemination
policy
and program. In conducting the study, it will be important for the
Public
Printer to work closely with the respective oversight and appropriation
committees, executive branch agencies, other distributors of Federal
documents and information products, the Library of Congress, the
depository
library community, the National Technical Information Service, users,
the
information industry, and other appropriate organizations. The
completed
study shall be available to Congress by March 1996.

H.R. 1854: FY 1996 Legislative Branch Appropriations (As Reported in
the
Congressional Record, July 28, 1995, Pages H7965-H7966)

Amendment numbered 34:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the
Senate numbered 34, and agree to the same with an amendment, as
follows:

Restore the matter stricken by said amendment, amended to read as
follows:

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

Sec. 210. The fiscal year 1997 budget submission of the Public
Printer to the Congress for the Government Printing Office shall
include
appropriations requests and recommendations to the Congress that--

(1) are consistent with the strategic plan included in the
technological study performed by the Public Printer pursuant to Senate
Report 104-114;

(2) assure substantial progress toward maximum use of electronic
information dissemination technologies by all departments, agencies,
and
other entities of the Government with respect to the Depository Library
Program and information dissemination generally; and

(3) are formulated so as to require that any department, agency, or
other entity of the Government that does not make such progress shall
bear
from its own resources the cost of its information dissemination by
other
than electronic means.

And the Senate agree to the same.

House Report 104-212: Conference Report on H.R. 1854: FY 1996
Legislative
Branch Appropriations (Pages 14-15)

Amendment numbered 34: Deletes a House provision stricken by the
Senate
which would have amended section 1903 of Title 44, and inserts a
provision
directing the Public Printer to include in the fiscal year 1997 budget
submission a proposal for the depository library program that will
result
in the conversion of this program to electronic format. The Public
Printer
is directed to propose a means to create cost incentives for publishing
agencies, including the Congress, to migrate from print-on paper
products
to electronic format. The conferees direct that the Public Printer and
Superintendent of Documents consult with the Joint Committee on
Printing,
House and Senate document publishing managers, and appropriate
executive
branch officials in the development of the fiscal year 1997 budget
program.
The conferees also do not intend that the study directed in the Senate
report or the plan regarding electronic format should interfere with the
activities of the authorizing committees to consider legislation
amending
Title 44, U.S. Code, or any legislative initiative which will improve the
Federal printing program.

Public Law 104-53 (109 Stat 533); Legislative Branch Appropriations
Act,
1996; H.R. 2492, November 19, 1995

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

SEC. 210. The fiscal year 1997 budget submission of the Public
Printer to the Congress for the Government Printing Office shall
include appropriations requests and recommendations to the
Congress
that

(1) are consistent with the strategic plan included in the
technological study performed by the Public Printer pursuant to
Senate
Report 104 114;

(2) assure substantial progress toward maximum use of electronic
information dissemination technologies by all departments,
agencies,
and other entities of the Government with respect to the Depository
Library Program and information dissemination generally; and

(3) are formulated so as to require that any department, agency,
or other entity of the Government that does not make such progress
shall bear from its own resources the cost of its information
dissemination by other than electronic means.

Attachment B:

Roster of Working Group Members, Advisors and Staff

Attachment B

Study to Identify Measures Necessary
for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic
Federal Depository Library Program

Participants

Representing the U.S. Government Printing Office

Mr. Michael DiMario Public Printer
Mr. Wayne Kelley Superintendent of Documents (Chair of
Study)
Mr. Frank Biden Office of Congressional, Legislative, and
Public Affairs
Mr. Gil Baldwin Library Programs Service
Mr. Charles C. Cook Congressional Printing Management
Division
Mr. Robert Cox Departmental Account Representative Division
Mr. Bill Guy Office of Budget
Ms. Judy Russell Office of Electronic Information Dissemination
Services
Mr. Jay Young Library Programs Service

Representing the U.S. Congress (Majority Staff)

Mr. George Cartagena Joint Committee on Printing
Ms. Christine Ciccone Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
Mr. Ed Edens Senate Committee on Rules and Administration
Ms. Catherine Fanucchi House Committee on House Oversight
Mr. Doug Fuller Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
Mr. Larry Harris Office of Senator Connie Mack
Ms. Linda Kemp Joint Committee on Printing
Mr. Keith Kennedy Senate Committee on Appropriations
Mr. Jonathon Lack Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
Mr. Ray Mock Office of Congressman Ron Packard
Mr. Mark Uncapher House Committee on Government Reform
and
Oversight, Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information and Technology
Ms. Joy Wilson Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration

Representing the U.S. Congress (Minority Staff)

Mr. John Chambers Joint Committee on Printing
Mr. Don DeArmon Office of Congressman Vic Fazio
Mr. Jim English Senate Committee on Appropriations
Ms. Kennie Gill Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration
Mr. Charlie Howell House Oversight Committee
Mr. Eric Ilgenfritz Office of Senator Patty Murray
Mr. Robert Mansker Joint Committee on Printing
Mr. David McMillen Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight
Mr. David Plocher Committee on Governmental Affairs

Representing the Library of Congress

Ms. Jane Bortnick Griffith Congressional Research Service
Mr. Harold Relyea Congressional Research Service

Representing the Office of Management and Budget

Mr. Bruce McConnell Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs
Mr. Glenn Schlarman Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs
Mr. Peter Weiss Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Representing the National Archives and Records Administration

Mr. Tom Brown Center for Electronic Records
Ms. Fynnette Eaton Center for Electronic Records

Representing the Federal Publishers Committee

Mr. Ken Rogers STAT-USA, Department of Commerce
Mr. John Weiner Information and Administration Services,
Energy Information Administration

Representing the Interagency Council on Printing and Publication
Services

Mr. Roy Francis Branch of Policy and Printing Management,
Department of the Interior

Representing the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Mr. Gary Bowden

Representing the Depository Library Community

Ms. Julia Wallace Government Publications Library, University
of Minnesota

Advisors

Ms. Prudence Adler Association of Research Libraries
Ms. Mary Alice Baish American Association of Law Libraries
Ms. Joan Challinor National Commission on Libraries and
Information Science
Mr. Dan Duncan Information Industry Association
Ms. Jan Fryer Iowa State University, Depository Library
Council
Ms. Roxanne Fulcher Special Libraries Association
Ms. Diane Garner Harvard University, American Library
Association/GODORT
Ms. Anne Heanue American Library Association
Ms. Carol Henderson American Library Association
Mr. Lloyd Hysan U.S. Supreme Court
Dr. Donald Johnson National Technical Information Service and
CENDI
Mr. Peyton Neal Information Industry Association
Mr. Dan O'Mahony Brown University, Depository Library
Council
Ms. Lois Schoenbrun Special Libraries Association
Ms. Lynne Siemers Washington Hospital Center, Medical Library
Association

Advisors, continued

Ms. Jeanne Hurley Simon National Commission on Libraries and
Information Science
Mr. Frederick Weingarten Computing Research Associates, American
Library Association
Mr. Peter Young National Commission on Libraries and
Information Science

GPO Staff

Mr. Bill Arndt Library Programs Service
Mr. Jeff Axline Library Programs Service
Ms. Terri Barnes Office of Electronic Information
Dissemination Services
Mr. Michael Bright Office of Electronic Information
Dissemination Services
Mr. Michael Clark Library Programs Service
Mr. Ric Davis Library Programs Service
Mr. Thomas Downing Library Programs Service
Ms. Laurie Hall Library Programs Service
Mr. Jerry Hammond Congressional Printing Management
Ms. Robin Haun-Mohamed Library Programs Service
Ms. Wendy Frederick Documents Technical Support
Mr. Joseph McClane Bibliographic Systems Branch
Ms. Sheila McGarr Library Programs Service
Ms. Maggie Parhamovich Library Programs Service
Mr. Joseph Paskoski Library Programs Service
Mr. Berry Reece Office of Marketing
Mr. Andy Sherman Office of the Public Printer
Mr. Willie Thompson Library Programs Service
Mr. Tony Zagami Office of the General Counsel

Special thanks is given to Ms. Wendy Kloiber Frederick who provided
the
primary staff support for the FDLP Study and to Mr. Ric Davis who
assisted
with the drafting and editing of the FDLP Study Report.

Attachment C:

List of Tasks

Attachment C

STUDY TO IDENTIFY MEASURES NECESSARY
FOR A SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION TO A MORE ELECTRONIC
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM

Tasks for Implementation

1. Technical analysis by a Federally-Funded Research and Development
Center (FFRDC) to determine the most cost effective way to provide
electronic access to Government information products to the American
public
through the Federal Depository Library Program [Task Leader: Jay
Young]

2. Identification of relevant laws, regulations and policies regarding
Government information dissemination [Task Leader: Jane Griffith]

3. Identification, acquisition and evaluatation of already available
information, both published and unpublished, relevant to the FDLP
Study
[Task Leader: Julia Wallace]

4. Identification of current and ongoing electronic information
dissemination activities for the Federal Depository Library Program
[Task
Leader: Judy Russell]

5. Evaluation of incentives for publishing agencies, including Congress,
to migrate from print products to electronic format and include their
electronic products in the FDLP [Task Leader: Roy Francis]

6. Evaluation of current laws governing the Federal Depository Library
Program and recommendation of and legislative changes necessary for a
successful transition to a more electronic program [Task Leader: Jay
Young]

7. Survey of Federal agencies to identify CD-ROM titles that are not
currently included in the Federal Depository Library Program [Task
Leader:
Gil Baldwin]

8. Development of individual case studies for specific Federal
electronic
information dissemination initiatives with respect to their costs, and
impact on public access to information through the Federal Depository
Library Program in comparison with present methods of dissemination.
Case
studies include Congressional Bills, the Congressional Serial Set,
Department of Energy (DOE) research reports and Office of Technology
Assessment (OTA) reports [Task Leaders: Charles Cook (Congressional
information), Gil Baldwin (DOE), Fynnette Eaton and Tom Brown
(OTA)]

9. Evaluation of issues surrounding inclusion in electronic formats of
materials not traditionally included in the FDLP in either paper or
microfiche, including case studies on Securities and Exchange
Commission
EDGAR data and Federal District and Circuit Court opinions [Task
Leaders:
Julia Wallace (overview and SEC) and Gary Bowden (Federal courts)]

10. Review of Federal programs permitting or requiring the sale of
information to recover costs, and the effects on efforts to assure free
public access through the FDLP, including case studies on STAT-USA
and the
National Library of Medicine MEDLINE Service [Task Leader: Ken
Rogers
(STAT-USA) and Gil Baldwin (MEDLINE)]

Attachment D:

Task Force Reports

D-1 Task 1: Technical Analysis by a Federally-Funded Research and
Development Center (FFRDC)

D-2 Task 2: Identification of Relevant Laws, Regulations and
Policies
Regarding Government Information Dissemination

D-3 Task 3: Bibliography of Information Relevant to the FDLP Study

D-4 Task 5: Evaluation of Incentives for Publishing Agencies to
Migrate from Paper Products to Electronic Format

D-5 Task 6: Evaluation of Current Laws Governing the Federal
Depository Library Program and Recommendation of Legislative
Changes

D-6 Task 7: Survey of Federal Agencies to Identify CD-ROM Titles
That
Are Not Currently Included in the Federal Depository Library
Program

D-7 Task 8A: Case Study on Congressional Bills

D-8 Task 8B: Case Study on the Congressional Serial Set

D-9 Task 8C: Case Study on the Department of Energy (DOE)
Research
Reports

D-10 Task 8D: Case Study on the Office of Technology Assessment
(OTA)
Reports

D-11 Task 9: Evaluation of Inclusion in Electronic Formats of
Materials Not Traditionally Included in the FDLP in Either Paper
or Microfiche

D-12 Task 9A: Case Study on Securities and Exchange Commission
EDGAR
Data

D-13 Task 9B: Case Study on Federal District and Circuit Court
Opinions

D-14 Task 10A: Federal Programs Permitting or Requiring the Sale of
Information to Recover Costs -- Case Study on STAT-USA Services

D-15 Task 10B: Federal Programs Permitting or Requiring the Sale of
Information to Recover Costs -- Case Study on the National
Library of Medicine MEDLINE Service

Attachment D-1

Task 1: Technical Analysis by a Federally-Funded
Research and Development Center

Attachment D-1

The draft report to Congress included a proposal for Technical
Implementation Assistance (TIA) in lieu of the FFRDC contract. This
TIA
contract was to obtain additional information about future agency
publishing plans and current depository library capabilities, as well as
an
expert evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and usefulness of various
electronic formats that may be selected for depository library
distribution
or access. During the public comment period, the concept of the TIA
was
refined further into the Assessment of Standards for Creation and
Dissemination of Electronic Government Information Products, which
is
described below.

For the successful implementation of a more electronic FDLP, the
Congress, GPO and the library community must have additional
information
about future agency publishing plans, as well as an expert evaluation of
the cost-effectiveness and usefulness of various electronic formats that
may be utilized for depository library dissemination or access. A
central
implementation issue is the identification and utilization of standards
for
creation and dissemination of electronic Government information
products.
These standards would enhance access to, and use of, Government
information
both by the Government and the public. The Government produces an
enormous
quantity and variety of information. The standards best suited for one
type of data may be substantially less suited, or even entirely
inappropriate, for another. Consequently, there is no single standard
in
which all Government information products can, or should, be created
or
disseminated. Nevertheless, it is in the best interests of the
Government,
and those who use Government information, to achieve a greater degree
of
standardization than now exists, and to develop recommended
standards for
each major type of Government information product in order to
facilitate
the exchange and use of this information.

GPO is proposing to accomplish this data gathering and evaluation
through a joint effort with NCLIS. As an independent Federal agency
established to advise the President and the Congress on national
policies
related to library and information services adequate to meet the needs
of
the people of the United States, NCLIS is uniquely situated to
coordinate
this activity. While substantial changes already are underway, this
assessment of standards for the creation and dissemination of
electronic
Government information products should proceed as rapidly as
possible in
order to assure a successful and cost-effective transition to a more
electronic FDLP.

Attachment D-2

Task 2: Identification of Relevant Laws, Regulations and Policies
Regarding
Government Information Dissemination

Attachment D-2

TASK 2: Identification of relevant laws, regulations and policies
regarding
Government information dissemination.

INTRODUCTION

The FY 1996 Legislative Branch Appropriations Senate Report
(104-114)
contained language directing the conduct of a study that:

- examines the functions and services of the Federal Depository
Library Program, including technological capabilities of the
participating libraries;

- surveys current and future dissemination plans of executive branch
agencies;

- suggests improvements for agency compliance with relevant laws
and
policies regarding Government information dissemination; and

- identifies necessary measures to ensure transition to a more
electronically based and cost-efficient program.

As part of this effort, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) was
asked to prepare a compilation of statutes authorizing the
dissemination of
government information to the public. The methodology employed
involved
searching for relationships of variant forms of keywords in the text
portion of the Westlaw online database of The United States Code
Annotated.
The searches were repeated to allow for all possible word combination
and
synonyms. The results of these searches were then reviewed by CRS
staff to
eliminate irrelevant items and identify statutes of known relevance that
did not emerge from the searches. Known statutes were retrieved by
citation. This process was reiterated until CRS staff had a degree of
confidence in the results. The initial searching was conducted in
October,
1995, with additional searches performed throughout the revision
process.

Statutes mandating the publication of information in the Federal
Register or reports to Congress were eliminated. House Document
104-15,
prepared by the Clerk of the House, identifies statutory requirements
for
reports to Congress. Also eliminated were statutes allowing only public
examination of agency records, but not calling for affirmative public
dissemination. Particular reports and documents specified in Chapter
5,
Title 2 and Chapter 13 of Title 44 were not included because there is no
language specifically indicating public dissemination.

This methodology, which relies heavily on online searching of a
massive database, cannot ensure that all relevant statutory provisions
are
identified. Thus, a preliminary draft was distributed for review by
others, including executive branch personnel, who identified other
statutes
appropriate for addition to the compilation. We emphasize that this
compilation identifies a large survey of statutes providing Federal
agencies with authority for disseminating government information to
the
public, but it cannot be considered exhaustive or definitive.

The statutory provisions identified are listed in order by title and
section of The United States Code Annotated. In most cases, the entire
section is provided to give adequate context, although in some
instances
editing was done to reduce the volume of the document. The most
relevant
passages are

underlined. A guide to the relevant sections provides listings according
to agency and selected topics. A given section may appear under several
headings depending on its contents. What the guide reflects is that, in
addition to broad Government-wide information dissemination policies
(e.g.,
those in Title 44), many agencies have some kind of generic publication
or
dissemination authority. Further, there are many instances where
specific
authority is granted for the publication or dissemination of particular
kinds of information, the production of information services, or the
creation of clearinghouses.

Only the index of Federal entities and the topical index are provided in
this attachment.

INDEX OF FEDERAL ENTITIES

Administrative Conference of the U.S.
5 USC 594(3)

Consumer Product Safety Commission
15 USC 2054(a)(1)

Corporation for National and Community Service
42 USC 5021(a)(1)

Department of Agriculture
7 USC 423
7 USC 473b
7 USC 626
7 USC 1011(e)
7 USC 1593a
7 USC 1736a(b)(3)
7 USC 2201
7 USC 2330
7 USC 2662
7 USC 3125a(d), (e)
7 USC 3125b
7 USC 3125c
7 USC 5341(a)
7 USC 5403(c)
7 USC 5505(a)
7 USC 5711(g)(2)
7 USC 5712(a)(2)
7 USC 5882
16 USC 2804(c)
EO 11644, sec. 5

Department of Commerce
7 USC 423
13 USC 7
13 USC 62
13 USC 302
15 USC 272(c)(17)
15 USC 274
15 USC 290b
15 USC 330b
15 USC 1152
Department of Commerce, continued
15 USC 2208(a), (c)
15 USC 2220(a)(2), (6)
15 USC 2904(d)
15 USC 3704a
15 USC 3704(c)(15), (d)(1)
15 USC 3704b-2(a)
15 USC 3704b(e)
15 USC 3705(a)
15 USC 3710(c), (d), (e)
15 USC 4906
15 USC 4912
19 USC 2354(c)
19 USC 2544(a)
19 USC 2575a
19 USC 2576a
22 USC 3101(b)
22 USC 3103(a)(5)
22 USC 2121(b)(15)
22 USC 2122
33 USC 883b
EO 11625, sec. 1(3)
Reorganization Plan 4 of 1970,
section 1(e)

Department of Defense
10 USC 2517(c)
10 USC 10210
33 USC 2295
44 USC 1314
EO 11644, sec. 5

Department of Education
20 USC 107a(a)(4)
20 USC 1070a-51
20 USC 1092(d)
20 USC 1105f(b)
20 USC 1213c(d)(1)(C)(i), (d)(1)(E)
20 USC 1409(f), (g)
20 USC 1423(b)(7)
20 USC 1433

Department of Education, continued
20 USC 1452
20 USC 2402(c)
20 USC 2415
20 USC 2505(a)
20 USC 6041(b), (f), (g), (h)
20 USC 6622
20 USC 9001(b)
20 USC 9003
42 USC 1382h(c)

Department of Energy
15 USC 779(a)(4)
15 USC 790f(b)(2)
15 USC 2703(d)
15 USC 2706(c)
42 USC 2161
42 USC 5813
42 USC 5817(e)
42 USC 5916
42 USC 5919
42 USC 6349(c)(2)
42 USC 7112(5)(D)
42 USC 7135(a), (d), (j)
42 USC 7373
42 USC 8257(c)
42 USC 8541(a)(2)
42 USC 9003(b)
42 USC 9206(5)
42 USC 9310
42 USC 13336(b)
42 USC 13366
42 USC 13458(c)
42 USC 13478

Department of Health and Human Services
15 USC 1341(a)(4), (5), (6)
15 USC 4401(a)(1)
21 USC 358(d)
29 USC 657(g)
30 USC 813(h)
42 USC 241
42 USC 247b-4(b)
42 USC 263b(l)
42 USC 280b(b)
42 USC 283g(d)(1)
42 USC 284a(a)(3)(B)
42 USC 284e(c)(1)
42 USC 285a-2
42 USC 285b-2
42 USC 285b-7(b), (e)
42 USC 285c-1

Department of Health and Human Services,
continued
42 USC 285c-8
42 USC 285d-3
42 USC 285e-1(c)
42 USC 285e-6
42 USC 285e-7(a)
42 USC 285g-5(c)(1)(E)
42 USC 285m-2
42 USC 285o-4
42 USC 285p-2(c)
42 USC 285q-2(a)(3)(B)
42 USC 286
42 USC 286c
42 USC 286d
42 USC 287a(a)(3)(B)
42 USC 287d-1
42 USC 290aa(d)(3), (9), (16)
42 USC 290aa-1(a)(2)(B)
42 USC 290bb-2(c)
42 USC 290bb-21(b)(4), (d)
42 USC 290bb-31(b)(10)
42 USC 300e(c)(8)
42 USC 300j-24
42 USC 300u
42 USC 300u-6
42 USC 300u-7(d)
42 USC 300cc-17
42 USC 300cc-20(a)(5)
42 USC 300ee-31(b)
42 USC 679a
42 USC 1382h(c)
42 USC 1790(b)
42 USC 3012
42 USC 3016(a)
42 USC 3017(d)
42 USC 3031(a)(3)
42 USC 3032(a)(6)
42 USC 3505b(3)
42 USC 5104
42 USC 5105(b)
42 USC 5107(a)(1)
42 USC 5113(b)
42 USC 11252
42 USC 11262
42 USC 11411(c)
42 USC 13105
EO 12160, sec. 1-4(c)

Department of Housing and Urban Development
12 USC 1701x(a)(1)(i)
42 USC 3532(b)

Department of Housing and Urban Development,
continued
42 USC 5510
42 USC 5557(a)
42 USC 5589(a)
42 USC 11411(c)
42 USC 11922

Department of the Interior
16 USC 18a
16 USC 407bb
16 USC 407dd
16 USC 410ccc-2(c)
16 USC 469a-1(a), (b)
16 USC 470a(i), (j)
16 USC 471i(l)
16 USC 742d(a)
16 USC 943a
16 USC 1052(b)
16 USC 1383a(b)(5)(B), (h)
16 USC 2003(c)
16 USC 2302(e)
16 USC 2803(e)
16 USC 3142(e)(2)
16 USC 4722(a), (h)
30 USC 3
30 USC 1028(a)
30 USC 1211(c)
42 USC 1900(c)
44 USC 1320
EO 11644, sec. 5

Department of Justice
8 USC 1103(b)
8 USC 1324a(i)
18 USC 4124(d)
28 USC 521
42 USC 3722(c)
42 USC 3732(c)
42 USC 3769d(a)
42 USC 5667(b)
42 USC 5773(b)

Department of Labor
29 USC 2
29 USC 13
29 USC 435
29 USC 622
29 USC 713(c)
29 USC 714
29 USC 1535(a)(4)
29 USC 1708

Department of Labor, continued
29 USC 657(g)
30 USC 813(h)

Department of State
22 USC 5511
22 USC 1431

Department of Transportation
49 USC 111(c)(1), (2)(C), (5)
49 USC 329(a), (b)(1)
49 USC 506(c)
49 USC 5115(d)(2)
49 USC 5503
49 USC 20703(c)
49 USC 20902(c)
49 USC 32302(b)
49 USC 33112(h)

Department of the Treasury
19 USC 3109(b)(3)
31 USC 3513

Department of Veterans Affairs
38 USC 527
38 USC 5701(c)(3)

Environmental Protection Agency
15 USC 2663(a)
15 USC 2665(a)1, (4), (7); (c); (e)(5)(C)
15 USC 2668(b)
15 USC 2685(b)(2), (d), (e)
33 USC 1254(b), (l), (q)
42 USC 6937(a)
42 USC 6963(b)
42 USC 6982
42 USC 6983(b)(2), (e)
42 USC 7403(b)(1), (6)
42 USC 7408(b)(1), (f)(1), (h)
42 USC 9660(b)(8)
EO 11514, sec. 2(c)
EO 12780, sec. 301(e)(2)

Federal banking agencies
12 USC 4805(a)(1)(B)

Federal Election Commission
2 USC 438(a)(2)

Federal Emergency Management Agency
42 USC 4020
42 USC 5197(f)

Federal Emergency Management Agency,
continued
49 USC 5115(d)(1)
42 USC 5196(g)

General Accounting Office
31 USC 1112(c)

General Services Administration
10 USC 381(2)(c)
31 USC 6102(c)
31 USC 6104
40 USC 760(a)
40 USC 761
42 USC 11411(c)

Government Printing Office
44 USC 501
44 USC 504
44 USC 738
44 USC 1701
44 USC 1708
44 USC 1710
44 USC 1711
44 USC 1714
44 USC 1902
44 USC 1911
44 USC 4101
44 USC 4102

Institute for Scientific and Technological
Cooperation
22 USC 3503(a)(6)

Interagency Council on the Homeless
42 USC 11313(a)(5)

Library of Congress
2 USC 150
17 USC 707

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
42 USC 2473

National Archives and Records Administration
5 USC 552a(f)
44 USC 2109

National Center for Productivity and Quality of
Working Life
15 USC 2414(11)
15 USC 2415(2)

National Foundation on the Arts and the
Humanities
20 USC 954(c), (q)
20 USC 956(c)

Office of Management and Budget
44 USC 3504
44 USC 3511

Office of National Drug Control Policy
EO 12880, sec. 1(f)

Office of Personnel Management
EO 12871, sec. 25(b)

Office of Science and Technology Policy
16 USC 2805(b)
30 USC 1805(b)

Office of the Law Revision Counsel
2 USC 285b(3)

Small Business Administration
15 USC 631(b)(1)(E)
15 USC 634c(5)
15 USC 637(b)(1)(A), 15
15 USC 638(b)(4), (d)(1)
15 USC 649(b)(2), (c)(4), (5), (6)
15 USC 653(c)(3), (4)

Tennessee Valley Authority
EO 11644, sec. 5

U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
22 USC 2551

U.S. Information Agency
22 USC 1461(a)
22 USC 1461-1

U.S. Institute of Peace
22 USC 4604(b)(7), (8)

U.S. Metric Board
15 USC 205e(3), (7), (8), (9)

U.S. Sentencing Commission
28 USC 995(a)(14), (15), (16)

TOPICAL INDEX

catalog authorization
7 USC 2662(a)(3)
7 USC 3125b
7 USC 3125c
10 USC 381(2)(c)
16 USC 2803(e)
17 USC 707(a)
18 USC 4124(d)
20 USC 2505(a)
31 USC 6104
42 USC 286
44 USC 1711

census dissemination
13 USC 7
13 USC 302
42 USC 3012(e)

clearinghouse authorization
7 USC 2662(a)(3)
15 USC 637(b)(1)(A)
15 USC 779(a)(4)
15 USC 1152
15 USC 2054(a)(1)
15 USC 2208(a), (c)
15 USC 2665(a)(1)
15 USC 2685(e)(1)
15 USC 3704a
15 USC 3710(d), (e)
20 USC 1105f(b)
20 USC 1433
20 USC 6041(f)
20 USC 6622
22 USC 4604(b)(8)
29 USC 714
33 USC 1254(q)
42 USC 247b-4(b)
42 USC 283g(d)(1)
42 USC 284e(c)(1)
42 USC 285c-1
42 USC 285d-3(b)
42 USC 285e-7(a)
42 USC 285m-2(b)
42 USC 290aa(d)(16)
42 USC 290bb-31(b)(10)
42 USC 300u(a)(11)(C)
42 USC 300u-7(d)
42 USC 300ee-31(b)
42 USC 679a
42 USC 3012(d)(1)(B)

clearinghouse authorization, continued
42 USC 3505b(3)
42 USC 3532(b)
42 USC 3722(c)(7)
42 USC 3769d(a)
42 USC 5104
42 USC 5773(b)
42 USC 11922
42 USC 13105
42 USC 13366
42 USC 13458(c)

data base authorization and dissemination
7 USC 5882
10 USC 2517(c)(2), (4)
15 USC 2665(a)(7)
15 USC 4906
16 USC 943a
16 USC 1383a(h)
20 USC 1070a-51
20 USC 1213c(d)(1)(C)(i)
42 USC 285a-2(a)(2)(D)
42 USC 290bb-21(d)
42 USC 300cc-17
42 USC 5510(c)
42 USC 5557(a)
42 USC 7408(h)
42 USC 13105
49 USC 5503(d)

dissemination through the National Technical
Information Service
10 USC 2517(c)(4)(B), (5)
15 USC 3704b-2(a)

electronic bulletin board authorization
22 USC 5511

film, video, sound recording
production/acquisition and dissemination
16 USC 1052(b)
20 USC 1452

generic dissemination authority
7 USC 2201
7 USC 3125a(d)(3), (e)
8 USC 1103(b)
10 USC 10210
12 USC 1701x(a)(1)(i)
13 USC 302

generic dissemination authority, continued
15 USC 272(c)(17)
15 USC 631(b)(1)(E)
15 USC 634c
15 USC 637(b)(15)
15 USC 638(b)(4), (d)(1)
15 USC 649(b)(2), (c)(4)
15 USC 653(c)(3), (4)
15 USC 1152(b)
15 USC 1341(a)(4), (5), (6)
15 USC 2208(a), (c)
15 USC 2414(11)
15 USC 2415(2)
15 USC 2703(d)
15 USC 2706(c)
15 USC 2904(d)
15 USC 3704a
15 USC 3704b(e)
15 USC 3710(c), (d)
16 USC 18a
16 USC 407bb
16 USC 407dd
16 USC 410ccc-2(c)
16 USC 470a(i), (j)
16 USC 742d(a)
16 USC 1383a(b)(5)(B)
16 USC 2003(c)
16 USC 2302(e)
16 USC 2805(b)
16 USC 3142(e)(2)
16 USC 4722(a), (h)
19 USC 2544(a)
19 USC 2575a
19 USC 2576a
19 USC 3109(b)(3)
20 USC 107a(a)(4)
20 USC 954(h)
20 USC 1105f(b)
20 USC 1213c(d)(1)(E)
20 USC 1409(f), (g)
20 USC 1423(b)(7)
20 USC 1433
20 USC 2402(c)
20 USC 2415
20 USC 2505(a)
20 USC 6041(b), (f)(4)(C)
20 USC 6622
20 USC 9001(b)
20 USC 9003
22 USC 1461(a)
22 USC 1461-1
22 USC 3101(b)

generic dissemination authority, continued
22 USC 4604(b)(7), (8)
22 USC 1431
22 USC 2121(b)(15)
22 USC 2122(8)
22 USC 2551
22 USC 3503(a)(6)
28 USC 995(a)(15), (16)
29 USC 622
29 USC 1535(a)(4)
29 USC 1708
30 USC 3
30 USC 1211(c)
31 USC 3513
31 USC 6102(c)(1)
33 USC 883b
33 USC 1254(b), (l)
38 USC 527
40 USC 760(a)
40 USC 761
42 USC 241
42 USC 247b-4(b)
42 USC 280b(b)
42 USC 283g(d)(1)
42 USC 284e(c)(1)
42 USC 285a-2
42 USC 285b-2
42 USC 285b-7(b), (e)
42 USC 285c-1
42 USC 285c-8
42 USC 285d-3
42 USC 285e-1(c)
42 USC 285e-6
42 USC 285e-7(a)
42 USC 285g-5(c)(1)(E)
42 USC 285m-2
42 USC 285o-4
42 USC 285p-2(c)
42 USC 286
42 USC 286d
42 USC 287d-1
42 USC 290aa(d)(3), (9), (16)
42 USC 290bb-2(c)
42 USC 290bb-21(b)(4)
42 USC 290bb-31(b)(10)
42 USC 300u
42 USC 300u-6
42 USC 300u-7(d)
42 USC 300cc-17
42 USC 300cc-20(a)(5)
42 USC 679a
42 USC 1382h(c)

generic dissemination authority, continued
42 USC 2161
42 USC 2473
42 USC 3012
42 USC 3016(a)
42 USC 3031(a)(3)
42 USC 3032(a)(6)
42 USC 3532(b)
42 USC 3722(c)(6)
42 USC 3732(c)
42 USC 3769d(a)
42 USC 4020
42 USC 5021(a)(1)
42 USC 5104(b)
42 USC 5105(b)
42 USC 5107(a)(1)
42 USC 5113(b)
42 USC 5196(g)
42 USC 5510
42 USC 5557(a)
42 USC 5589(a)
42 USC 5667(b)
42 USC 5773(b)
42 USC 5813
42 USC 5817(e)
42 USC 5916
42 USC 5919
42 USC 6963(b)
42 USC 6983(e)
42 USC 7112(5)(D)
42 USC 7135(a)
42 USC 7373
42 USC 7403(b)(1), (6)
42 USC 7408(b)(1)
42 USC 8257(c)
42 USC 8541(a)(2)
42 USC 9003(b)
42 USC 9206(5)
42 USC 9310
42 USC 9660(b)(8)
42 USC 11252
42 USC 11262
42 USC 11313(a)(5)
42 USC 13105
42 USC 13336(b)
42 USC 13366
42 USC 13458(c)
42 USC 13478
49 USC 111(c)(2)(C)
49 USC 329(a), (b)(1)
49 USC 5503
49 USC 32302(b)

generic dissemination authority, continued
EO 11514, sec. 2(c)
EO 11625, sec. 1(3)
EO 11644, sec. 5
EO 12160, sec. 1-4(c)
EO 12780, sec. 301(e)(2)
EO 12880, sec. 1(f)

generic publication authority
5 USC 594(3)
12 USC 1701x(a)(1)(i)
15 USC 205e(8), (9)
15 USC 272(c)(17)
15 USC 274
15 USC 3704(c)(15)
16 USC 18a
16 USC 407dd(c)
16 USC 410ccc-2(c)
16 USC 469a-1(a), (b)
16 USC 1052(b)
17 USC 707(b)
20 USC 954(c)
20 USC 1092(d)
20 USC 2505(a)
20 USC 9003
22 USC 3103(a)(5)
22 USC 4604(b)(7)
22 USC 2122(6), (8)
28 USC 995(a)(14)
29 USC 13
29 USC 435
29 USC 622
29 USC 713(c)
29 USC 1535(a)(4)
29 USC 657(g)
30 USC 813(h)
31 USC 1112(c)
33 USC 883b
33 USC 1254(b)
38 USC 5701(c)(3)
42 USC 241
42 USC 263b(l)
42 USC 280b(b)
42 USC 284a(a)(3)(B)
42 USC 285a-2
42 USC 285b-2
42 USC 285o-4
42 USC 285q-2(a)(3)(B)
42 USC 287a(a)(3)(B)
42 USC 290aa-1(a)(2)(B)
42 USC 300cc-20(a)(5)
42 USC 1790(b)

generic publication authority, continued
42 USC 1900(c)
42 USC 3012
42 USC 3016(a)
42 USC 3017(d)
42 USC 3732(c)
42 USC 5105(b)
42 USC 5113(b)
42 USC 5197(f)
42 USC 6983(b)(2)
42 USC 7135(d), (j)
42 USC 7403(b)(1)
42 USC 7408(f)(1)
42 USC 8541(a)(2)
42 USC 9206(5)
42 USC 9310
42 USC 13478
44 USC 2109
49 USC 506(c)
49 USC 5115(d)(2)
49 USC 33112(h)
EO 11644, sec. 5

government information locator service
44 USC 3511
44 USC 4101

information dissemination programs/plans
assessment or development
EO 12871, sec. 25(b)
15 USC 3704b(e)
15 USC 3705(a)
16 USC 471i(l)
20 USC 954(h)
30 USC 1805(b)
31 USC 6102(c)(2)
42 USC 286c
42 USC 300u-6(b)(4)
44 USC 3504
44 USC 3506

restrictions
5 USC 3107
7 USC 5712(a)(2)
20 USC 954(c)
20 USC 956(c)
22 USC 1461-1a
44 USC 501
44 USC 1102
44 USC 1108
44 USC 1701

sales authorization
7 USC 3125a(e)(4)
15 USC 4912
16 USC 1052(b)
19 USC 2544(a)
19 USC 2575a
19 USC 2576a
31 USC 6102(c)(1)
44 USC 1708
44 USC 1314

specific information dissemination
7 USC 423
7 USC 1011(e)
7 USC 473b
7 USC 626(b)
7 USC 1593a
7 USC 2330(b)
7 USC 2662(a)
7 USC 3125b
7 USC 3125c
7 USC 5505(a)(3)
7 USC 5882(c)
8 USC 1324a(i)
10 USC 2517(c)
13 USC 62
15 USC 290b
15 USC 330b
15 USC 649(c)(5), (6)
15 USC 790f(b)(2)
15 USC 2054(a)(1)
15 USC 2220(a)(2), (6)
15 USC 2665(a)(4); (c); (e)(5)(C)
15 USC 2668(b)
15 USC 2685(b)(2); (d)
15 USC 4401(a)(1)
15 USC 4906
16 USC 2804(c)
19 USC 2354(c)
30 USC 1028(a)
42 USC 300e(c)(8)
42 USC 6349(c)(2)
42 USC 11411(c)
49 USC 5115(d)(1)
Reorganization Plan 4 of 1970,
section 1(e)

specific publication production and dissemination
2 USC 150
2 USC 285b(3)
2 USC 438 (a)(2)
5 USC 552(a)(2)

specific publication production and
dissemination, continued
5 USC 552a(f)
7 USC 1736a(b)(3)
7 USC 2330(a)
7 USC 5341(a)
7 USC 5403(c)
7 USC 5711(g)(2)
7 USC 5712(a)(2)
13 USC 7
15 USC 274
15 USC 649(c)(6)(D)
15 USC 2220(a)(6)
15 USC 2663(a)
15 USC 3704(d)(1)
17 USC 707(a)
18 USC 4124(d)
21 USC 358(d)
28 USC 521
31 USC 6104
33 USC 2295
42 USC 286
42 USC 300e(c)(8)
42 USC 300j-24(b)
42 USC 6937(a)
42 USC 6982
44 USC 1314
44 USC 1710
44 USC 1711
44 USC 1714

specific publication production and
dissemination, continued
49 USC 20703(c)
49 USC 20902(c)

statistics dissemination
7 USC 626(a)
13 USC 62
16 USC 742d(a)
20 USC 6041(g)(2)(C)(iv)
20 USC 9001(b)
20 USC 9003
22 USC 3103(a)(5)
22 USC 2122(6)
29 USC 2
29 USC 435
42 USC 300e(c)(8)
42 USC 3012
42 USC 3732(c)
42 USC 7135(a), (d)
49 USC 111(c)(1), (5)
EO 12880, sec. 1(f)

telecommunications technology use
7 USC 3125b(b)
12 USC 4805(a)(1)(B)
20 USC 2402(c)
20 USC 6041(g)
22 USC 5511

This compilation was prepared by Jane Bortnick Griffith, Specialist in
Information Science and Technology, Science Policy Research Division;
Harold C. Relyea, Specialist in American National Government,
Government
Division; and Frances A. Bufalo, Specialist in Automated Information
Resources, Automation Office, with the assistance of Morton
Rosenberg,
American Law Division and Donna Scheeder, Congressional Reference
Division.

Attachment D-3

Task 3: Bibliography of Information Relevant to the FDLP Study

Attachment D-3

TASK 3: Identification, acquisition and evaluation of already available
information, both published and unpublished, relevant to the FDLP
Study.

This bibliography includes a selection of articles, books, reports,
surveys
and documents on subjects related to the FDLP Study. It is far from
comprehensive, but attempts to include a variety of materials and a mix
of
policy investigations and technical studies. When they were located,
Universal Resource Locators (URL's) are provided for materials which
are
available through the Internet. Materials on the bibliography are
grouped
into seven general areas:

* Information Access Policy and Practice
* Reports and Articles from Depository Library Conferences,
Librarians, and Library Associations
* Surveys on Access to Technologies
* Archiving and Preservation of Electronic Information
* Technology and the National Information Infrastructure
* Selected Congressional Hearings and Reports
* Government Printing Office Studies

INFORMATION ACCESS POLICY AND PRACTICE

Both general and specific issues relating to Government information
access policy are explored from a variety of viewpoints in the
articles, reports and books listed here. Issues of equity and access
appear in many of the publications. Comprehensive overviews are
found
in the Hernon and Perritt studies, among others. The public's use is
investigated in reports from Bauman Foundation, OMB Watch, and
Ryan
and McClure. And both Birdsall and Crawford urge caution in
embracing
the myth of the totally electronic library.

Bass, Gary D. and David Plocher. Strengthening Federal Information
Policy: Opportunities and Realities at OMB. Washington, DC: Benton
Foundation, 1989.

Bauman Foundation. Agenda for Access: Public Access to Federal
Information
for Sustainability through the Information Superhighway: A Report.
Prepared by The Bauman Foundation with Co-sponsorship by The
Benton
Foundation, The HKH Foundation, The Rockefeller Family Fund, The
Summit
Foundation. [Washington, DC]: Bauman Foundation, 1995.

Bertot, John Carlo and Charles McClure. "Assessing U.S. Government
Bulletin Boards: Problems, Policy Issues, and Recommendations."
Internet
Research: Networking Applications and Policy 4, no. 1 (Spring 1994):
45-63.

Birdsall, William F. The Myth of the Electronic Library : Librarianship
and Social Change in America. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994.

Biscardi, Francine. "The Historical Development of the Law Concerning
Judicial Report Publication." Law Library Journal 85 (1993): 531-544.

Browning, Graeme. "Dueling over Data." National Journal 25 (December
4,
1993): 2880-2884.

Chartrand, Robert Lee, and Ketcham, Robert C. Opportunities for the
Use of
Information Resources and Advanced Technologies in Congress: A
Study for
the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress: A Consultant
Report.
New York: Carnegie Commission, 1993.

Crawford, Walt, and Michael Gorman. Future Libraries: Dreams,
Madness &
Reality. Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 1995.

Doctor, Ronald D. "Social Equity and Information Technologies:
Moving
Toward Information Democracy." Annual Review of Information
Science and
Technology 27 (1992): 43-96.

Gellman, Robert M. "Twin Evils: Government Copyright and
Copyright-Like
Controls Over Government Information." Syracuse Law Review 45, no.
3
(1995): 999-1072.

Hernon, Peter, and Charles R. McClure. "Electronic U.S. Government
Information: Policy Issues and Directions." Annual Review of
Information
Science and Technology 28 (1993): 45-110.

Hull, Theodore J. "Reference Services and Electronic Records: The
Impact
of Changing Methods of Communication and Access." Reference
Services Review
23, no. 2 (Summer 1995): 73-78.

Information Industry Association. Principles for Federal Dissemination
of
Public Information: Executive Summary and Analysis; Interim Final
Report.
Washington, DC: IIA, 1995.

Jones, Daryl L. "Florida's Response to Serving Citizens in the
Information
Age." Journal of Government Information 22 (1995): 13-22.

Kahin, Brian, "Information Policy and the Internet: Toward a Public
Information Infrastructure in the United States." Government
Publications
Review 18, no. 5 (September/ October 1991): 451-472.

Love, James P. "The Marketplace and Electronic Government
Information."
Government Publications Review 19, no. 4 (July/August 1992): 397-412.

Love, James. "Pricing Government Information." Journal of Government
Information 22, no. 5 (1995): 363-387.

Massant, Eric J. "The Role of Libraries and the Private Sector: Policy
Principles for Assuring Public Access to U.S. Federal Government
Information: A Viewpoint." Journal of Government Information 21, no.
5
(September/October 1994): 383-90.

OMB Watch. People and their Governments in the Information Age:
Putting
Government Information Online: A Report on the National Electronic
Open
Meeting and a Progress Report on Implementation of the Government
Information Locator Service (GILS). Washington, DC: OMB Watch,
1995.

Perritt, Henry H. Electronic Public Information and the Public's Right
To
Know: Proceedings of a Consultation in Washington, D.C. Washington,
DC:
Benton Foundation, 1990.

Perritt, Henry H. Public Information in the National Information
Infrastructure : Report to the Regulatory Information Service Center,
General Services Administration, and to the Administrator of the Office
of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.
Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget, 1994. (PREX
2.2:IN 3/3)

Ryan, Joe and Charles R. McClure. Users' Perspectives on U.S.
Government
Information and Services on the Internet: A Summary from Two
Seminars: A
Report Prepared for the Information Infrastructure Task Force.
Syracuse,
NY: Syracuse University, School of Information Studies, 1994.

Ryan, Joe, Charles R. McClure, and Rolf T. Weigand. "Federal
Information
Resources Management: New Challenges for the Nineties." Government
Information Quarterly 11, no. 3 (1994): 301-314.

Saffady, William. "Digital Library Concepts and Technologies for the
Management of Library Collections: An Analysis of Methods and Costs."
Library Technology Reports 31, no. 3 (May/June 1995): 221.

Schiller, Herbert I. Information Inequality: The Deepening Social Crisis
in America. New York: Routledge, 1996.

Schwartz, Bonnie Fox. "EDGAR Update: The Proliferation of
Commercial
Products." Legal Information ALERT 15, no. 1 (January 1996): 1 ff.

Sprehe, J. Timothy. "Issues in Public Access: The Solomons
Conferences."
Government Publications Review 20 (May/June 1993): 251.

Tageldin, Shaden. "Local Government Roles and Choices on the
Information
Superhighway." Public Management 77 (May 1995): 4-8.

United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Informing
the
Nation: Federal Information Dissemination in an Electronic Age
(OTA-CIT-396). Washington, DC: GPO, 1988. (Y 3.T 22/2:2 In 3/9)

United States. Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology.
Subcommittee
on Electronic Dissemination of Statistical Data. Electronic
Dissemination
of Statistical Data. [Washington, DC]: Statistical Policy Office, Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget,
1995. (Statistical Policy Working Paper 24). (URL: http://www.bts.gov
or
http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/stats.htm)

United States. General Accounting Office. Federal Information: Users'
Current and Future Technology Needs: Fact Sheet for the Chairman,
Joint
Committee on Printing, U.S. Congress (GAO/GGD-89-20FS).
Washington, DC:
GAO, 1988.

United States. General Accounting Office. Government Printing: Legal
and
Regulatory Framework is Outdated for New Technological
Environment: Report
to Congressional Committees. Washington, DC: GAO, 1994. (GA 1.13:
NSIAD-94-157)

United States. General Accounting Office. Information Dissemination:
Federal CD-ROM Titles - What Are Available and How They Were
Priced.
Washington, DC: GAO, 1993. (GA 1.13:IMTEC-93-34 FS)

United States. Information Infrastructure Task Force. Working Group
on
Intellectual Property Rights. Intellectual Property and the National
Information Infrastructure. Washington, DC: Information
Infrastructure
Task Force, 1995. (C 21.2:P 94/3) (URL:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/ipnii/)

United States. Task Force on Future Directions for the National Archive
of
Criminal Justice Data. Future Directions for the National Archive of
Criminal Justice Data: Report of the Task Force (NCJ-154875).
Washington,
DC: Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics; GPO, 1995. (J
29.2:D 62)

Wood, Fred. B. "Technology and Public Information." Forum for
Applied
Research and Public Policy 4 (Fall 1989): 79-82.

REPORTS AND ARTICLES FROM DEPOSITORY LIBRARY
CONFERENCES, LIBRARIANS, AND
LIBRARY ASSOCIATIONS

Depository librarians have planned and participated in independent
conferences to develop plans for the electronic evolution of the
FDLP,
and have been active members of strategic planning sessions
sponsored
by Library Associations. Proposals for a renewed commitment to
public
access in its new formats include models for new relationships
between
agencies, libraries, oversight and operational authorities, and users.
In addition, articles and reports identify essential policy, technical
and service issues as they relate specifically to the FDLP. Two
forthcoming special issues of the Journal of Government
Information
("Challenges to Access") will include approximately two dozen new
contributions from policy-makers and practitioners.

American Library Association. Government Documents Roundtable
(GODORT).
Ad Hoc Committee on the Internet. "Whitepaper: Government
Information in
the Electronic Environment." January 1996. Documents to the People
24, no.
1 (March 1996). (C: 21-39) (URL:
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/GSSI/whiteppr.html)

Association of Research Libraries. Task Force on Government
Information in
Electronic Format. Technology & U.S. Government Information
Policies:
Catalysts for New Partnerships. Washington, DC: Association of
Research
Libraries, 1987.

"Challenges to Access: New Approaches to a Continuing Need." Journal
of
Government Information, Forthcoming special issues, Vol. 23, no. 3
and 4
(May/June and July/August, 1996).

Cornwell, Gary, Ridley R. Kessler, Duncan Aldrich, Thomas K.
Andersen,
Stephen M. Hayes, Jack Sulzer, and Susan Tulis. "Problems and Issues
Affecting the U.S. Depository Library Program and the GPO: The
Librarians'
Manifesto." Government Publications Review 20, no. 2 (March/April
1993):
121-140.

Depository Library Council to the Public Printer (U.S.). "Alternatives
for
Restructuring the Depository Library Program: A Report to the
Superintendent of Documents and the Public Printer from the
Depository
Library Council." [Washington, DC]: September 1993. Administrative
Notes
16, no. 16 (December 5, 1995): 23-59.

Dugan, Robert E. and Ellen M. Dodsworth. "Costing Out a Depository
Library: What Free Government Information?" Government Information
Quarterly 11, no. 3 (1994): 261-284.

Dugan, Robert E. and Joan Cheverie. "Electronic Government
Information
and the Depository Library Program: Paradise Found?" Government
Information
Quarterly 9, no. 3 (1992): 269-289.

"Dupont Circle Group: Discussion Draft, April 1993." The Dupont
Circle
Reporter: An Electronic Informal Newsletter for the Federal Depository
Community. (1993). (URL:
gopher://arl.cni.org:70/00/info/govinfo/dupont.circle/reporter)

"Enhanced Library Access and Dissemination of Federal Government
Information: A Framework for Future Discussion." Working Document
endorsed
by the American Association of Law Libraries, American Library
Association,
Association of Research Libraries, Special Libraries Association, 1995.
American Association of Law Libraries Newsletter 27, no. 1 (September
1995): 14-15. (URL: gopher://arl.cni.org:70/00/info/govinfo/govinfo and
gopher://arl.cni.org:70/00/info/govinfo/govinfo.partners)

Ford, Stephanie. Public Access to Electronic Federal Depository
Information in Regional Depository Libraries. Master's Paper...School
of
Information and Library Science of the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. 1995.

Levin, Marc A. "Access and Dissemination Issues Concerning Federal
Government Information." Special Libraries 74 (April 1983): 127-137.

"Model for 'New Universe' of Federal Information Access and
Dissemination:
Preliminary Results of Forum on Government Information Policy, July
20-21,
1995, Sponsored by American Library Association." ALAWON, ALA
Washington
Office Newsline 4, no. 77 (August 9, 1995). (URL:
gopher://ala1.ala.org:70/11/alagophwashoff/alagophwashoffforum)

Morton-Schwalb, Sandy. "Reinventing Access to Government
Information: Fact
or Fiction?" Database 17, no. 6 (December 1994): 8-9.

O'Mahony, Daniel P. "The Road from Chicago...and Back Again: A
Status
Report on Reinventing Access to Federal Government Information."
Documents
to the People 23, no. 2 (June 1995): 87-90.

Principles for the Development of the National Information
Infrastructure:
American Library Association Telecommunications and Information
Infrastructure Policy Forum Proceedings. Chicago, IL: American Library
Association, 1993. (URL: http://www.ala.org/principl.html)

"Reinventing Access to Federal Government Information: Report of the
Chicago Conference on the Future of Federal Government Information,
Chicago, Illinois, October 29-31, 1993." Documents to the People 21, no.
4
(December 1993): 234-246; Administrative Notes 14, no. 24 (November
30
1993): 11-29. (URL:
gopher://arl.cni.org:70/1m/info/dupont.circle/chicago/post-chicago.txt)

Ruhlin, Michele, Herb Somers, and Judith Rowe. "National Research
and
Education Network and the Federal Depository Library Program."
Documents to
the People 19, no. 2 (June 1991): 106-109.

Shuler, John A. "Cyberspace and Democracy." Documents to the People
23,
no. 2 (June 1995): 85-86.

Shuler, John A. "A New Order of Things: The Political Future of
Documents
Librarians and a National System of Federal Depository Libraries."
Government Information Quarterly 11, no. 3 (1994): 315-322.

Smith, Diane. "Depository Libraries in the 1990's: Whither or Wither
Depositories?" Government Publications Review 17, no. 4 (1990):
301-324.

Sulzer, Jack. "Cyberspace Democracy: the 21st Century Environment."
Documents to the People 22, no. 4 (December 1994): 280-286.

Swanbeck, Jan, and Peter Hernon. Depository Library Use of
Technology: A
Practitioner's Perspective. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1993.

SURVEYS ON ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGIES

Surveys have estimated the total number of users with Internet
access
from 5.8 million with full, direct access (O'Reilly, 1995) to 37
million with direct or indirect connections in the U.S. and Canada
(Commercenet/Nielsen, 1995). The Census Bureau's surveys have
indicated that approximately 36% of the population over 17 had
access
to computers at home, work or school in 1993, but only 35% of home
computers were equipped with modems. In Falling Through the Net,
the
NTIA used Census Bureau survey data show that information
"have-nots"
fall disproportionately in rural areas and central cities.

The CommerceNet/Nielsen Internet Demographics Survey. [New York]:
CommerceNet Consortium/Nielsen Media Research, 1995. (URL:
http://www.commerce.net/information/surveys/)

O'Reilly & Associates. Defining the Internet Opportunity. Sebastopol,
CA:
O'Reilly & Assoc., 1995. Summary at: (URL:
http://www.ora.com/gnn/bus/ora/survey/index.html)

Times Mirror Center for The People and The Press. "Technology in the
American Household: Americans Going Online...." Washington, DC: The
Center,
1995. (URL: http://democracyplace.org/polls2.html)

United States. Bureau of the Census. Computer Use in the United
States,
1989. Washington, DC: GPO, 1991. (Current Population Reports; P-23
no.171). (C 3.186:P-23/171)

United States. Bureau of the Census. Computer Use in the United
States,
1993. Not published, but available electronically through Census
gopher,
FTP and Web sites. (URL:
http://www.census.gov/ftp/pub/population/www/compute.html)

United States. Department of Commerce. National
Telecommunications and
Information Administration. Falling Through the Net: A Survey of the
"Have
Nots" in Rural and Urban America. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of
Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, 1995.
(URL: http://www.ntia.doc.gov:80/ntiahome/fallingthru.html)

United States. Department of Commerce. National
Telecommunications and
Information Administration. Survey of Rural Information
Infrastructure
Technologies. NTIA Special Publication 95-33. Washington, DC: GPO,
1995.
(C 60.9:95-33) (URL:
http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/its/spectrum/rural/ruralrep.html)

ARCHIVING AND PRESERVATION OF ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

The technical and procedural issues surrounding the preservation of
electronic Government information are complex and challenging.
These
publications represent the growing body of research which is
proposing
a more aggressive stance for the National Archives and Records
Administration in obtaining, managing and providing access to
electronic Government information products. The Commission on
Preservation and Access proposes a national system of digital
archives
involving many stakeholders.

National Academy of Public Administration. The Archives of the
Future:
Archival Strategies for the Treatment of Electronic Databases: A Study
of
Major Automated Databases Maintained by Agencies of the U.S.
Government.
A report for the National Archives and Records Administration.
[Washington, DC: NAPA,] 1991.

National Research Council (U.S.). Steering Committee for the Study on
the
Long-term Retention of Selected Scientific and Technical Records of the
Federal Government. Preserving Scientific Data on Our Physical
Universe: A
New Strategy for Archiving the Nation's Scientific Information
Resources.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995.

Preserving Digital Information: Report of the Task Force on Archiving
of
Digital Information. Commissioned by The Commission on
Preservation and
Access and The Research Libraries Group. [Washington, DC] 1996.
(URL:
http://www-rlg.stanford.edu/ArchTF/)

TECHNOLOGY AND THE NATIONAL INFORMATION
INFRASTRUCTURE

Literature about the growing National Information Infrastructure
abounds. The publications below attempt to define the issues and
the
roles for the many players, including governments at all levels,
libraries, schools, and the non-profit and private sectors.

Anderson, Robert H., Tora K. Bikson, Sally Ann Law, and Bridger M.
Mitchell. Universal Access to E-Mail: Feasibility and Societal
Implications. Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 1995. (URL:
http://www.rand.org:80/publications/MR/MR650/)

Drake, William J., ed. The New Information Infrastructure: Strategies
for
U.S. Policy. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund Press, 1995.

Huffman, Lisa, and Woody Talcove. "Information Infrastructure:
Challenge
and Opportunity." Public Management 77 (May 1995): 9-14.

Interagency Kiosk Committee (U.S.) The Kiosk Network Solution : An
Electronic Gateway to Government Service. Prepared by the
Interagency
Kiosk Committee for the Customer Service Improvement Team of the
Government
Information Technology Services Working Group. [Washington, DC:
Office of
the Vice President, 1995] (PRVP 42.2: K 62)

Kahin, Brian, and James Keller, eds. Public Access to the Internet. A
Publication of the Harvard Information Infrastructure Project.
Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 1995.

Libraries and the National Information Infrastructure: Proceedings of
the
1994 Forum on Library and Information Services Policy. [Washington,
DC]:
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, 1995.
(Y
3.L 61:2 P 94/3)

McClure, Charles R., John Carlo Bertot, and John C. Beachboard.
Internet
Costs and Cost Models for Public Libraries: Final Report. Washington,
DC:
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, 1995.
(Y
3.L 61:2 C 82)

McClure, Charles R., William E. Moen, and Joe Ryan. Libraries and the
Internet/NREN: Perspectives, Issues and Challenges. Westport, CT:
Meckler,
1993. (See especially chapter 7, "The Federal Depository Library
Program
and the National Research and Education Network," by John H. Sulzer)

McClure, Charles R., John Carlo Bertot, and Douglas L. Zweizig. Public
Libraries and the Internet: Study Results, Policy Issues, and
Recommendations. Washington, DC: U.S. National Commission on
Libraries
and Information Science, 1994. (Y 3.L 61:2 L 61/6)

National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council (U.S.). Common
Ground: Fundamental Principles for the National Information
Infrastructure:
First Report of the National Information Infrastructure Advisory
Council.
Washington, DC: National Information Infrastructure Advisory
Council, 1995.
(C 60.2:IN 3) (URL: http://nii.nist.gov/common-ground.txt)

National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council (U.S.). A Nation
of
Opportunity: Realizing the Promise of the Information Superhighway.
Washington, DC: National Information Infrastructure Advisory
Council, for
sale by GPO, [1996]. (C 60.2:P 94) (URL:
http://www.benton.org/KickStart/nation.home.html)

National Performance Review (U.S.). Reengineering Through
Information
Technology : Accompanying Report of the National Performance
Review.
Washington, DC: Office of the Vice President; For sale by GPO, 1993.
(PRVP
42.2:G 74/REENG) (URL: http://www.npr.gov/NPR/Reports/it.html)

Technology and Economic Performance: Organizing the Executive
Branch for a
Stronger National Technology Base. New York: Carnegie Commission,
1991.

United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Critical
Connections: Communication for the Future (OTA-CIT-470).
Washington, DC:
GPO, 1990. (Y 3.T 22/2:2 C 73/13)

United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Making
Government Work: Electronic Delivery of Federal Services
(OTA-TCT-578).
Washington, DC: GPO, 1993. ( Y 3.T 22/2:2 E l2/12) (URL:
http://otabbs.ota.gov/T23)

United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Rural
America
at the Crossroads: Networking for the Future (OTA-TCT-471).
Washington,
DC: GPO, 1991. (Y 3.T 22/2:2 Am 3/3)

United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment.
Telecommunications Technology and Native Americans: Opportunities
and
Challenges (OTA-ITC-621). Washington, DC: GPO, 1995. (Y 3.T 22/2:2
T
23/2) (URL: http://otabbs.ota.gov/pub/pdf/telecom.natam/)

United States. Department of Commerce. National
Telecommunications and
Information Administration. Connecting the Nation: Classrooms,
Libraries,
and Health Care Organizations in the Information Age: Update 1995, by
Emilio Gonzalez. Washington, DC: GPO, 1995. (C 60.2:C 76) (URL:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/connect.html)

United States. Department of Commerce. National
Telecommunications and
Information Administration. NTIA Infrastructure Report:
Telecommunications
in the Age of Information. NTIA Special Publication 91-26.
Washington,
DC: GPO, 1991. (C 60.2:T 23)

United States. Information Infrastructure Task Force. National
Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Action. [Washington, DC:
Executive
Office of the President], Information Infrastructure Task Force, [1993].
(PREX 1.2:IN 3) (URL: http://sunsite.unc.edu/nii/toc.html)

Walsh, R. Taylor. The National Information Infrastructure and the
Recommendations of the 1991 White House Conference on Library and
Information Services. Washington, DC: GPO, 1994. (Y 3.L61:2 IN 3/4)

SELECTED CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS AND REPORTS

In addition to the investigations below, extensive data on the
subjects in the FDLP Study are found in annual appropriations
hearings.

United States. Congress. House. Committee on Government
Operations.
Electronic Collection and Dissemination of Information by Federal
Agencies:
A Policy Overview. (H. Report 99-560) Washington, DC: GPO, 1986.
(Y
1.1/8:99-560)

United States. Congress. House. Committee on Government
Operations.
Creative Ways of Using and Disseminating Federal Information.
Hearings, 19
June 1991, 19 February and 4 June 1992. Washington, DC: GPO, 1992.
(Y
4.G74/7:In 3/24)

United States. Congress. House. Committee on Government
Operations.
Electronic Collection and Dissemination of Information by Federal
Agencies.
Hearings, 29 April, 26 June, and 18 October 1985. Washington, DC:
GPO,
1986. (Y 4.G 74/7:EL 2/5)

United States. Congress. House. Committee on Government
Operations.
Taking a Byte Out of History: The Archival Preservation of Federal
Computer
Records (H. Report 101-978). Washington, DC: GPO, 1990. (Y
1.1/8:101-978)

United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Printing. An Open Forum
on
the Provision of Electronic Federal Information to Depository Libraries:
Report of the Staff of the Joint Committee on Printing to the Chairman
of
the Joint Committee on Printing (S. Print 99-84). Washington, DC:
GPO,
1985. (Y 4.P 93/1:EL 2/4)

United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Printing. Government
Information as a Public Asset. Hearing, 25 April 1991 (S. Hearing
102-114). Washington, DC: GPO, 1991. (Y 4.P 93/1:G 74/12)

United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Printing. New
Technology and
the Government Printing Office. Hearings, 19 June and 24 July 1991 (S.
Hearing 102-115). Washington, DC: GPO, 1992. (Y 4.P 93/1:T 22)

United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Printing. Provision of
Federal Government Publications in Electronic Format to Depository
Libraries: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Depository Library
Access to
Federal Automated Data Bases. Washington, DC: GPO, 1985. (Y 4.P
93/1:P
92/2)

United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Human
Resources.
Libraries and their Role in the Information Infrastructure. Hearing 19
April 1994. (S. Hearing 103-569). Washington, DC: GPO, 1994. (Y 4.L
11/4:S. HRG. 103-569)

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE STUDIES

United States. Government Printing Office. Library Programs Service.
Electronic Capabilities of Federal Depository Libraries, Summer 1994.
Washington, DC: GPO, 1995. (GP 3.2:EL 2/2)

United States. Government Printing Office. Report of the Serial Set
Study
Group: Investigation of Alternatives for Production and Distribution of
the
Bound U.S. Congressional Serial Set. Washington, DC: GPO, 1995.
(GP
1.2:SE 6/3)

United States. Government Printing Office. Superintendent of
Documents.
Accessing the Economic Bulletin Board: Electronic Publications in the
Federal Depository Library Program Pilot Project Report. Washington,
DC:
GPO, 1994. (GP 3.2:EC 7)

United States. Government Printing Office. Superintendent of
Documents.
Accessing U.S. Department of Energy Scientific and Technical
Information:
Electronic Publications in the Federal Depository Library Program Pilot
Project Report. Washington, DC: GPO, 1993. (GP 3.2:SCI 2)

United States. Government Printing Office. Superintendent of
Documents.
Reading the Congressional Record on CD-ROM: Electronic Publications
in the
Federal Depository Library Program Pilot Project Report. Washington,
DC:
GPO, 1992. (GP 3.2:C 76/2)

Attachment D-4

Task 5: Evaluation of Incentives for Publishing Agencies to Migrate
From
Print Products to Electronic Format

Attachment D-4

TASK 5: Evaluation of incentives for publishing agencies, including
Congress, to migrate from print products to electronic format and
include
their electronic products in the FDLP.

METHODOLOGY

Input was solicited from the two main agency sources involved in
publishing
and distribution of Government information: Information Resource
Management
(IRM) Officers and Printing Officers. This task was most relevant to
the
Printing Officers since the request from Congress was to identify cost
incentives to migrate from print products to electronic format.
However,
IRM Officers were included in order to identify the opportunities for,
and
obstacles to, including agency electronic information products in the
FDLP.
From interviewing associates in the two fields, it is apparent that there
is a definite difference of opinion on possible incentives for
participation in the FDLP. Also, due to the differing procedural
functions
of the two entities, it was necessary to approach this task from two
different perspectives.

BACKGROUND

Printing Management

The printing community is very familiar with 44 U.S.C. Chapter 19 and
the
Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). It appears that in this
arena
there are real possibilities for an effective incentive program. Virtually
all publications are made available to the FDLP automatically through
the
GPO printing procurement process. Only publications procured outside
the
GPO procurement process, "fugitive documents," fail to be considered
for
the FDLP. Printing management responses indicate a real perceived
value to
participation in the FDLP and an appreciation for the incentives already
implicit in the current structure, i.e. that GPO pays for printing
depository copies when a publication is printed or procured through
GPO.

Currently, approximately 50% of all printing requests submitted to GPO
are
submitted in an electronic format, but these encompass a wide variety
of
formats. While this 50% is a basis for electronic distribution, it will
require reformatting by the agencies or GPO to put the Government
information products in formats useful to and useable by depository
libraries. If it becomes mandatory for GPO to make publications
available
to the FDLP in an electronic format, printing managers fear that the
originating office could become responsible for creating, or
reformatting,
the document in a format suitable for FDLP distribution. If that occurs,
it will be an administrative burden on the originating agencies as well
as
an additional expense, and therefore, a major disincentive to
participation
in the FDLP. This might lead to more fugitive documents.

Since GPO is the recommended procurement office for Federal printing
and
the coordinator for the FDLP system, it is reasonable to assume that a
program to enhance the FDLP system should start with the GPO. With
its FY
1997 budget justification, GPO included the Electronic Federal
Depository
Library Program: Transition Plan, FY 1996 - FY 1998 (known as the
Transition Plan) which sought continued funding and the authority for
GPO
to create, or reformat, electronic Government information products for
distribution through the FDLP./27/

/27/ Public comments in response to this document led directly to the
development of the Electronic Federal Depository Library Program:
Information Dissemination and Access Strategic Plan, FY 1996 - FY
2001,
included with this report as Exhibit 1.

Information Resources Management (IRM)

Unlike Printing Management, the typical IRM office is unaware of 44
U.S.C.
Chapter 19 requirements and the FDLP. There is little doubt that the
IRM
community has moved into the electronic information management age.
With
the advent of the Internet, more specifically the World Wide Web
(Web),
public access to Government information products has reached new
levels.
Virtually all publications that involve IRM routinely are evaluated for
dissemination through agencies' Web servers. However, Government
information products made available directly to an IRM office may not
be
intended to be printed. Likewise, documents made to be printed may
not be
submitted to an IRM office.

A key problem is that an IRM office often does not know what
publications
have been made available to GPO for printing and likewise the
publications
being printed often are not made available to an IRM office. It is
apparent that the two entities do not communicate as thoroughly as
necessary, therefore, information products are missed by both offices.
There are many legitimate reasons why this happens, but subject matter
and
audience appear to be major considerations in determining whether an
information product goes to print-on-paper or to the IRM community.

Typical IRM offices see no incentive to make Government information
products available electronically through the FDLP. The belief is that
as
long as these products are made available to the public via the Web,
their
mission of providing information to the American public is complete
because
the information is available to anyone who has access to a computer
and the
Internet. This overlooks the necessity to provide Government
information
products to those who do not have Internet access and a computer, as
well
as the need to provide permanent access, both of which currently are
assured by the FDLP.

It should be noted that if the FDLP continues, the general consensus in
the
IRM community is that all depository libraries should be required to
include a minimum standard of computer equipment, including at the
absolute
minimum: CD-ROM readers, network connections, download and
printing
capabilities. In fact, this has occurred and the minimum technical
guidelines become requirements in October 1996.

General Conclusions

Although several specific alternatives for new incentives were
developed
and are discussed below, the strongest incentive identified during this
task was, in fact, the one that exists in the current program: make
participation as effortless and automatic as possible and at no cost to
the
agency. One agency official summarized this by saying "first do no
harm,"
i.e. don't distract the agencies from their primary missions or require
the expenditure of any of their increasingly scarce resources. The
current
system where GPO rides agency print orders at its own expense means
that
merely by printing through GPO, as required by 44 U.S.C., FDLP
participation is ensured at no cost to the agency. Whatever new
mechanisms
are put in place, a more electronic FDLP must provide an equally simple
and
cost-effective means for agency participation.

DISSEMINATION ALTERNATIVES

Incentive A

Establish an electronic information management function within the
Superintendent of Documents. This would be similar to the current
system
of publication identification and review via GPO Form 3868
(Notification of
Intent to Publish) and the SF-1 (Printing and Binding Requisition),
where
all Government information products are reviewed to establish the
requirements for depository library distribution as part of the
publication
process. The electronic information management function would
assume those
current duties and add to that a determination of balance between
electronic requirements and printing needs. It is anticipated that the
number of print-on-paper copies will be greatly reduced by this process.
GPO would utilize to the extent possible electronic information
products
received from agencies and, when necessary, create or procure
alternative
formats useful to and useable by depository libraries and the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). GPO, in conjunction
with the
depository libraries and within its available funding, could provide
remote
access to electronic Government information products or disseminate it
in a
tangible form such as CD-ROM. Electronic information products
included in
the FDLP also would be transferred to NARA at the appropriate time
and in
formats acceptable to NARA. It should be noted that this transfer
would
not relieve the publishing agency of its archival responsibility without a
change in the law or archival regulations.

Benefits

- This would not affect the procurement process of GPO. It would
reduce the number of print-on-paper copies needed for the FDLP,
thereby reducing the total cost of printing to GPO.

- Agencies could continue to meet public requests for their
Government
information products by referring inquiries to depository libraries.

- Agencies would continue to submit documents to GPO in the same
manner
with no additional burden or cost.

- GPO remains the main focal point for a significant portion of the
documents entering the FDLP. This would not adversely affect the
current printing procurement procedure, but would continue to
funnel
documents through a central point for dissemination to the public.

- This alternative allows for standardization of formats of
publications for electronic dissemination. Standard formatting is a
cause for great concern among all Federal agencies including GPO
and
NARA. It is widely accepted that this is probably the most
imposing
task we face in electronic publishing today. This would also
provide the option for the agencies to receive their own electronic
information products back from GPO in one of the standardized
formats at little or no additional cost to the agency.

- Reformatting to standard formats by GPO relieves the submitting
agency from encumbering their current process. This encourages
participation in the FDLP by eliminating the cost for reformatting
each publication for electronic dissemination. At the same time, it
guarantees widespread distribution of agency information
products.

- Whenever it is possible and cost-effective to do so, GPO will
reformat agency information products into formats suitable for
preservation and will transfer them to NARA at the appropriate
time.
With the necessary change in law or archival regulations, providing
electronic information products to GPO for FDLP distribution in
these instances also would fulfill an agency's obligation to NARA.

Disadvantages/Problems

- GPO will incur additional costs for reformatting, providing access
to
and storing electronic Government information products. Some
types
of reformatting would result in GPO, rather than the agency,
assuming responsibility for the accuracy of the content. If the
agency provides GPO with camera copy instead of machine readable
data, and is unwilling or unable to provide some electronic format,
GPO must scan the information product for dissemination. Unless
scanning is done at a high resolution, the image files produced will
be only slightly better than microfiche. If

scanning is done at higher resolutions, it will be difficult to
provide the image files through the GPO electronic information
services due to the slower and more limited access methods that
many
depository libraries currently use to access such services.

- This will not influence the IRM managers who have never used and
may
be unfamiliar with the traditional print channels at GPO, so it will
not be a comprehensive solution.

Incentive B

For agencies who wish to maintain access to their electronic
information
products themselves, encourage participation in the FDLP by offering to
have the GPO Pathway locator services direct users to the agency Web
sites.
Also, offer to provide permanent access through the FDLP when the
agency no
longer has the desire or resources to maintain their electronic
information
products on their Internet sites. Partnerships between GPO and these
agencies could be formalized through interagency agreements.
Electronic
information products transferred to GPO for the FDLP also would be
transferred to NARA at the appropriate time and in formats acceptable
to
NARA. It should be noted that this transfer would not relieve the
publishing agency of its archival responsibility without a change in the
law or archival regulations.

Benefits

- More electronic information products are brought "officially" into
the FDLP.

- Public access is improved because the GPO Pathway locator services
provide a centralized mechanism for finding electronic Government
information products on multiple Government Web sites.

- Permanent access to electronic Government information products
through the FDLP is maintained.

- Whenever it is possible and cost-effective to do so, GPO will
reformat agency information products into formats suitable for
preservation and will transfer them to NARA at the appropriate
time.
With the necessary change in law or archival regulations, providing
its electronic information products to GPO for FDLP distribution in
these instances also would fulfill an agency's obligation to NARA.

Disadvantages/Problems

- Depository libraries that currently have little or no Web access
cannot access electronic Government information products on these
sites. This disadvantage will be reduced over time as depository
libraries upgrade their equipment and Internet access.

- The willingness of GPO to provide permanent access is not an
incentive for agencies to convert from print to electronic format,
although it does have the potential to bring additional Government
electronic information products into the FDLP.

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

Need for Central Management of Public Access and Dissemination

The Government Printing Office is an important cog in the Federal
Government procurement system. GPO has been very effective in
procuring a myriad of crosscutting services far beyond simple
printing. This is accomplished at the best price and quality level
available in the United States. In the Government printing
community
there is a heavy reliance on the expertise and guidance of GPO staff
in addition to printing procurement.

While the information management community may be
decentralized, there
should remain a central focal point and coordinated means for
assuring
public access to Government information products. As stated
earlier,
GPO is the recommended procurement source for Federal printing
and is
the coordinator for the FDLP. It is reasonable to assume that any
program should only enhance what GPO now provides better than
any
other source. The natural progression is to begin making GPO the
Federal Government's information manager for public dissemination
of
Government information products.

Standard Formats for Electronic Government Information Products

The need for standard formats has been a key issue for a number of
years. Now is an excellent time to address it. If standard formats
are implemented, expenditures could be reduced in preparation,
printing, distribution, storage and retrieval, archiving, and use of
electronic Government information products.

Education and Outreach

Many agency IRM and program managers are unaware of the FDLP
and their
obligations to the program under 44 U.S.C. Chapter 19 and OMB
Circular A-130. Some of those who are aware do not recognize the
value of the program in providing public access to their electronic
information products. To influence these managers it may be
necessary
to implement an outreach program highlighting what the FDLP is,
the
role it plays in providing public access to Government information,
and agency obligations to the FDLP. The difficulty will be in
locating those people within an agency who need to be contacted as
responsibilities for dissemination of information becomes
increasingly
decentralized.

Attachment D-5

Task 6: Evaluation of Current Laws Governing the
Federal Depository Library Program
and Recommendation of Legislative Changes

Attachment D-5

TASK 6: Evaluation of current laws governing the Federal Depository
Library
Program and recommendation of any legislative changes necessary for a
successful transition to a more electronic program.

Changes to 44 U.S.C. Chapter 19 would facilitate the transition to a
more
electronic Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). The changes
discussed below support the FDLP Study Report, particularly Section
III,
Principles for Federal Government Information, and Section IV,
Mission and
Goals for the Federal Depository Library Program.

SCOPE OF INFORMATION IN THE FDLP

Electronic Information to be Included

Electronic Government information products must be included in the
FDLP in
order to provide the broadest possible public access. The current
definition of "government publication" in 44 U.S.C. 1901 needs to be
broadened to include, without question, electronic information
products.
The following language, which would substitute new definitions, is one
way
to accomplish this:

"Government information" means Government publications, or
other
Government information products, regardless of form or format,
created
or compiled by employees of a Government agency, or at
Government
expense, or as required by law.

"Government information product" means a discrete set of
Government
information, either conveyed in a tangible physical format including
electronic media, or made publicly accessible via a Government
electronic information service.

"Government electronic information service" means the system or
method by which an agency or its authorized agent provides public
access to Government information products via a
telecommunications
network.

The purpose of this language is to broaden the scope of the chapter to
include information in electronic formats, whether published as a
tangible
product or made accessible via a Government electronic information
service.

"Cooperative Publications" Exclusion

Another consensus emerged from the Task 6 participants, as well as the
broader FDLP Study working group relating to 44 U.S.C. 1903. This
section permits the exclusion from the FDLP of "so-called cooperative
publications which must necessarily be sold in order to be
self-sustaining." This exclusion has resulted in Government information
of
significant public interest being kept out of the FDLP. In the view of
the
Task 6 participants this exclusion should be eliminated.

Fee-based Electronic Services

The general public, through the FDLP, should have no-fee access to all
Government information products meeting FDLP requirements.
However,
attaining this goal is often at odds with statutory or other requirements
on agencies that fees be charged for access to their electronic
information
services. This situation might be resolved in two ways. Through
legislative action, agencies could be directed to extend no-fee access to
the public through depository libraries. Alternatively, funds
appropriated
to the Superintendent of Documents for the FDLP could be used to
purchase
depository library access from the originating agencies.

How Information Is Made Available

The decentralized characteristics of the electronic information
environment
make it impractical for any single organization to obtain all electronic
information products for access and preservation, nor is such an
approach
cost-effective. Both FDLP Study working group and Task 6 participants
envision that GPO would make information available to depository
libraries
and the public in a variety of ways. The centralized acquisition and
distribution of tangible products would continue, as this activity has
significant value to the depository library community. However, purely
electronic Government information products could be accessible from a
variety of Government electronic information services, including the
GPO
Access services. This could include services operated by the originating
agencies or other entities acting as their agents, or by secondary
disseminators. Language such as the following would clarify this
approach:

The Superintendent of Documents shall make tangible products
available
through distribution to program libraries and shall direct program
libraries and the general public to Government information products
available via Government electronic information services.

Obtaining Copies of Products not Produced through GPO

Sometimes electronic Government information products are not
included in
the FDLP because they are not produced or procured through the
Government
Printing Office. The Task 6 participants agreed that the Superintendent
of
Documents should be authorized to use appropriated funds to obtain,
on an
incremental cost basis, copies of tangible electronic information
products,
particularly CD-ROM titles, which are produced or procured elsewhere
than
through GPO.

Agencies shall notify the Superintendent of Documents of tangible
electronic information products which are to be produced or
procured
elsewhere than through the Government Printing Office and
establish
procedures whereby the Superintendent of Documents may obtain
copies
on an incremental cost basis.

Electronic Source Files

As nearly all Government information products exist in electronic form
at
some point in their life cycle, most FDLP Study participants concurred
that
the most cost-effective method of incorporating additional electronic
information products into the FDLP was to obtain that source data
from the
originating agency. The following language provides one approach to
obtaining these source data files:

Upon request of the Superintendent of Documents, agencies shall
provide the Superintendent of Documents with electronic source
data
files of any Government information products falling within the
scope
of this Section.

PERMANENT PUBLIC ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

Historically, the FDLP, through the mechanism of the regional
depository
libraries, has guaranteed permanent access to tangible Government
information products. With respect to purely electronic Government
information, there is no parallel mechanism to ensure that this
information
is maintained for permanent public access.

Nearly all of the FDLP Study participants and FDLP stakeholders have
raised
issues concerned with maintaining electronic Government information
products for permanent public access. The Task 6 participants agreed
that
GPO, as the administrator of the FDLP, should coordinate the
development of
a distributed system including the publishing agencies, GPO, the
National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and depository libraries
for
such purposes. The following language is one way to accomplish this:

The Superintendent of Documents will coordinate with issuing
agencies,
the National Archives and Records Administration, and with
regional
and other program libraries to establish a system so that
Government
information products available via Government electronic
information
services will be maintained permanently for program library and
general public access. This system will utilize as one component the
electronic storage facility established by the Superintendent of
Documents under the provisions of Section 4101, Chapter 41, Title
44,
U.S. Code.

REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES

Public Service

Depository libraries are expected to provide no-fee public access to
Government information products included in the FDLP. For tangible
information products, all but the regional depository libraries may
select
what products they wish to receive and add to their collections, based
on
their assessment of local needs. For purely electronic Government
information, depository libraries are expected to provide no-fee public
access to all such information provided under the aegis of the FDLP.
FDLP
electronic information products may be accessible from GPO Access, or
the
SOD Pathway locator services may direct and link users to other
agencies'
electronic information services.

The Task 6 participants agreed that the commitment to provide public
service should be emphasized as a responsibility of any depository
library.
Language such as the following, which expands upon Section 1909,
could
clarify this point:

Only a library able to properly maintain and provide public access to
Government information and located in an area where it can best
serve
the public need, and within an area not already adequately served by
existing program libraries may be designated ...

Retention and Disposal of Government Information

In addition, a need to clarify and update the retention requirements on
both regional and selective depository libraries was identified. This
could be accomplished, in part, by removing the specific five-year
retention requirement from the statute, and allowing libraries to
dispose
of Government information products as authorized under guidelines to
be
issued by the Superintendent of Documents; and in part by the
language such
as the following:

Regional program libraries shall permanently retain at least one
copy
of all Government information products originally distributed either
in printed, microform, or tangible electronic form, except superseded
publications or those issued later in bound form which may be
discarded. Other Program libraries may dispose of government
information products as authorized by the Superintendent of
Documents.

Such language would clarify that the regional depository libraries'
responsibilities for retaining copies of tangible products, e.g. books,
maps, CD-ROM titles, etc., are not extended automatically to electronic
information products made accessible via Government electronic
information
services. Instead, regional depository libraries could elect to
participate in the development of a distributed system for providing
permanent public access to Government electronic information
products.

NOTIFICATION

In order for the FDLP to function effectively in a decentralized
electronic
environment, timely notice is required so that GPO personnel can
obtain
and/or convert data and provide locator services. A requirement is
needed
that publishing components notify the Superintendent of Documents at
such
time as they initiate, substantially modify, or terminate Government
information products. The following language is one way to accomplish
this:

Agencies shall notify the Superintendent of Documents of their
intent
to initiate any Government information product and shall notify the
Superintendent of Documents at such time as they substantially
modify,
or terminate a product available via a Government electronic
information service.

COMPLIANCE ISSUES

There was a consensus among Task 6 participants that agency
compliance with
the FDLP requirements of Title 44 has long been an issue. Historically,
Section 1903, which authorizes the SOD to pay for copies of products
produced or procured through GPO, and which requires agencies to
bear the
cost of FDLP copies produced other than through GPO, has acted as an
incentive for agencies to participate in the program. Nevertheless, there
were numerous instances where agencies failed to comply with the Title
44
requirements, and the Section 1903 "incentive" is not as effective in its
application to information published via a Government electronic
information service. Regardless of the reasons for agency
non-compliance,
the result is that Government information products are unavailable to
the
public through the FDLP. A consensus emerged among Task 6
participants
that statutory language is needed to improve program compliance
among the
agencies; however, no specific language was proposed.

CATALOGING AND LOCATOR SERVICES

Incorporating electronic information into the FDLP poses new
challenges to
users trying to find what they want. The Task 6 participants perceived
a
need to coordinate the traditional SOD cataloging activity, covering
tangible information products, with the developing suite of Pathway
locator
services directing users to information available from Government
electronic information services. The following language, which would
replace the existing Sections 1710 and 1711, is one way to approach
this:

The Superintendent of Documents shall provide cataloging and
locator
services which will direct program libraries and the general public to
Government information products.

The Superintendent of Documents shall create a comprehensive and
timely catalog of tangible Government information products which
will
be accessible to program libraries and the general public. The Public
Printer and the head of each agency shall immediately deliver to the
Superintendent of Documents a copy of every tangible Government
information product falling within the scope of Chapter 19 of this
Title.

The Superintendent of Documents shall create an electronic
directory
of Government information products available via Government
electronic
information services as required by Section 4101 of Chapter 41, of
this Title, which will identify, describe, and dynamically link users
to information products available via Government electronic
information services. When an agency makes an information
product
available only via a Government electronic information service, the
agency shall immediately furnish information about that product to
the
Superintendent of Documents to enable the Superintendent of
Documents
to provide locator services.

REDESCRIBING THE PROGRAM TO REFLECT A CHANGING
ENVIRONMENT

A consensus developed among Task 6 participants that the program
should be
redescribed to be more reflective of the electronic information
environment. "Depository" was viewed as strongly linked to the old
paradigm of shipping physical products, and did not adequately express
the
goal of public access to public Government information products. To
express this aspect of the program more fully, and to emphasize the
affirmative role of agencies to make their information available, the
Task
6 participants suggested that the title of Chapter 19 could be changed
to:
"Public Access to Government Information through Libraries: The
Federal
Information Dissemination and Access Program."

New definitions such as the following would support such a change:

The "Federal Information Dissemination and Access Program" is a
nationwide geographically-dispersed system, administered by the
Superintendent of Documents, consisting of program libraries acting
in
partnership with the United States Government, established within
this
Chapter for the purpose of enabling the general public to have local
access to Federal Government information at no cost.

This introduced a possible new term, "program library," which would
replace
the former "depository library," and might be defined as:

"Program library" means a depository or other library designated
under the provisions of Chapter 19 which maintains tangible
Government
information products for use by the general public, offers
professional assistance in locating and using Government
information,
and provides local capability for the general public to access
Government electronic information services.

Attachment D-6

Task 7: Survey of Federal Agencies to Identify CD-ROM Titles Not
Currently Included in the Federal Depository Library Program

Attachment D-6

TASK 7: Survey of Federal agencies to identify CD-ROM titles that are
not
currently included in the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP).

METHODOLOGY

Contacting Federal publishers concerning their CD-ROM publishing
has been a
shared effort by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the
Government Printing Office (GPO). OMB requested information from
the
executive branch publishing agencies, and GPO queried selected
legislative
and judicial branch publishers. Respondents were asked to include
detailed
information about their CD-ROM publishing activities since FY 1993
and to
provide reasons for not including specific CD-ROM titles in the FDLP.
The
OMB memorandum was done in conjunction with their effort to gather
data for
the National Information Infrastructure initiative.

This task group hoped to identify specific reasons for participation and
non-participation in the FDLP, in order to learn what motivates
agencies.
The responses were not sufficient to support a statistical analysis, but
some general conclusions can be drawn from the responses.

These results are based on replies from 24 executive branch agencies, 2
legislative branch agencies, and 2 judicial branch organizations. Survey
letters were sent to 35 executive agencies, including all cabinet level
agencies. All cabinet level agencies except the Department of State
responded, although State does have at least one CD-ROM title in the
FDLP.
However, the responses from many cabinet level agencies were
obviously
incomplete. For example, both the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
and
Bureau of the Census responded to the survey, but other Commerce
agencies
such as NTIS and NOAA which have major CD-ROM publishing
programs did not
respond.

In order to gain additional perspective on the agency responses, GPO
gathered additional data from two sources. Records on CD-ROM titles
in the
FDLP were extracted from GPO's Acquisition, Classification, and
Shipment
Information System (ACSIS) and this information was compared with
the
CD-ROM titles reported by the agencies, in order to determine if GPO
had
distributed any CD-ROM titles which agencies reported as not in the
FDLP.

GPO staff also reviewed records from the 1995 SIGCAT Compendium, a
voluntary listing of CD-ROM titles, most of which are published by
Federal
Government agencies. Although the Compendium data is not directly
comparable to the results from the OMB and GPO survey because of a
different time period and other parameters, it did provide another
means to
assess agency responses.

SURVEY RESULTS

- The survey responses identified 215 CD-ROM titles. The agency
responses identified only 91 (42.3%) as being distributed to
depository libraries. An additional 27 titles (12.6%) were
identified by GPO as being included in the FDLP, even though the
publishing agencies stated that those title were not included.
Therefore, altogether, 118 (54.8%) of the 215 titles identified by
publishing agencies are in the FDLP.

- Three agencies, the Census Bureau, Department of Health and
Human
Services (DHHS), and the Department of Education, accounted for
71
(78.0%) of the 91 CD-ROM titles reported by agencies as included
in
the FDLP. GPO records indicated that another 16 of the titles
reported by these three agencies were actually in the FDLP, raising
the total to 87 of a possible 118 (73.7%).

- Census reported providing 42 out of 66 CD-ROM titles, or 63.6% of
its
CD-ROM titles. According to GPO records, Census actually
provided
56 of its 66 CD-ROM titles (84.8%).

- DHHS provided 16 out of 25 CD-ROM titles reported, or 64.0%, and
GPO's records confirmed this report.

- Education acknowledged providing 13 out of 33 CD-ROM titles
reported,
or 39.3%. According to GPO records, it actually provided 15 titles
(45.5%).

- No reasons for participation in the FDLP were expressed by any of
the
respondents. No reasons for non-participation were provided for
65
of the 117 titles (55.6%) identified by agencies as not included in
the FDLP.

- Eight CD-ROM titles not included in the FDLP do have comparable
titles in the program in paper, although it was not possible to
determine if the content is identical.

- The two most frequent reasons given for non-participation were
that
the software license imposes a limit on the number of copies
distributed (21 responses) and that title was produced or is
available through the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS)
(14 responses). Other reasons include: forthcoming title (4);
commercially developed and distributed (4); public availability
under review (4); contains restricted or confidential information
(2); distributed by another agency (1); and an offer to arrange to
include the title in the FDLP (1). Several responses included more
than one reason.

- Judiciary and legislative branch responses indicated little to no
CD-ROM publishing activities to date. However, both the Supreme
Court and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts mentioned
an
interest in future CD-ROM development. The Library of Congress
response included a list of eleven CD-ROM titles, all of which were
bibliographic in nature and all of which were excluded from the
program as cooperative publications and/or due to licensing
restrictions. LC did not report any of its American Memory discs or
other CD-ROM titles.

Agency Name Number of Titles Number of Titles in Number of
Titles in Number of Titles
Reported: the FDLP: the FDLP: Reported:
Agencies Agency Reported GPO Confirmed 1995
SIGCAT
Compendium

EXECUTIVE

Agriculture 13 0 0 13
Commerce/BEA 2 2 2 0
Commerce/Census 66 42 56 104
Defense 8 3 3 14
Education 33 13 15 9
Energy 5 1 3 0
EPA 5 0 3 6
FCC 11 0 0 0
FDIC 1 0 0 0
Health 25 16 16 17
HUD 0 0 0 1
Interior/USGS 13 1 8 67
Justic 1 1 1 2
Labor 6 3 4 3
NARA 1 1 1 2
NASA 0 0 0 107
NRC 0 0 0 0
NSF 1 0 0 0
OMB 0 0 0 0
SBA 0 0 0 0
Transportation 9 5 5 2
Treasury/IRS 2 2 2 1
USIA 0 0 0 0
Veterans 2 1 1 0

JUDICIAL

Supreme Court 0 0 0 0
Admin. Office 0 0 0 0

LEGISLATIVE

GAO 0 0 0 0
LC 11 0 0 3

TOTAL 215 91 118 351

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

Some executive agencies with significant CD-ROM publishing activities
did
not respond to the survey, or responded that they have no CD-ROM
titles
when other information suggests that they have many. For example, a
search
of the 1995 SIGCAT CD-ROM Compendium database identified 107
CD-ROM titles
issued by NASA, which reported no CD-ROM titles in response to the
survey.
A similar search identified 104 titles from NOAA and 54 from NIST,
although
neither agency responded to the survey.

In discussions not related to this task force report, agencies have
identified other reasons for not including their CD-ROM titles in the
FDLP.
These reasons included a lack of awareness of the program or its
benefits;
miscellaneous software licensing issues; or that their discs were
cooperative publications which must be sold in order to be
self-sustaining,
as defined in 44 U.S.C. 1903.

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

Agency Responsibilities for Dissemination Through the FDLP

Some agencies believe that making their products available through
NTIS satisfies their public dissemination obligations, although OMB
Circular A-130 states that it is good public policy to include agency
electronic information products in the FDLP. There is unresolved
disagreement between various program stakeholders as to whether
current law requires CD-ROM titles to be in the FDLP. This issue
hinges on the definition of a publication codified in 44 U.S.C. 1901
and 1902.

Software Licensing

Restrictions arising from software licensing arrangements affect not
only the cost, but the availability of CD-ROM products. All
Government information products provided through the FDLP,
including
CD-ROM titles, remain the property of the Government, so FDLP
copies
can fall within contractual language that restricts the software to
Government use. Agencies may need to consider FDLP requirements
and
include appropriate language in their contracts in order for their
discs to be included in the FDLP. GPO can (and has) contracted for
software licenses for sales and depository copies when agency
licenses
do not cover GPO dissemination.

Awareness of the FDLP/Communications

Since CD-ROM titles may be produced by agency personnel
unfamiliar
with traditional printing arrangements there can be a lack of
communication within the publishing agency which results in discs
not
being included in the FDLP. In addition, not all relevant personnel
within the agency may be aware of how their information products
reach
the public. Thus, even agencies like Census and Education that work
closely with GPO and are committed to including their information
in
the FDLP do not always know which of their titles are and are not in
the program. A program of improved communication or outreach to
agencies may be necessary to ameliorate this situation.

Attachment D-7

Task 8A: Case Study on Congressional Bills

Attachment D-7

TASK 8A: Evaluation of the costs and benefits of converting
Congressional
bills and resolutions to electronic formats for distribution through the
Federal Depository Library Program.

BACKGROUND

The legislative agenda of each Congress determines the number of bills
introduced. Therefore, although it is possible to determine the average
number of bills per session this average does not accurately predict the
number of bills that will be produced in any particular session. For the
102nd and 103rd Congressional Sessions, the total number of bills and
resolutions simple, joint and concurrent was 24,543. All published
versions of bills are available electronically via Internet or
asynchronous
connection through GPO Access. Files are available in both ASCII and
Adobe
Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF). PDF files provide users with
an
exact image of the typeset page. With an Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available
at no cost from GPO or Adobe, users can view, navigate and print
Congressional bills exactly as they appear in the original typeset
version,
including all fonts, graphics and formats.

FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY DISTRIBUTION

Congressional bills on microfiche are selected by 859 depository
libraries.
This item selection includes House and Senate Bills, Resolutions, Joint
Resolutions and Concurrent Resolutions on microfiche. The cost to the
FDLP
per session of Congress for the production and distribution of
Congressional bills and resolutions on microfiche is approximately
$94,940.

Prior to December 1995, when free public access to the GPO Access
databases
was announced, the electronic bills were selected by 544 depository
libraries. WAIS access to Congressional bills, joint, concurrent and
simple resolutions was selected by 199 libraries, and SWAIS access was
selected by 257 libraries. Both types of access were selected by 88
libraries. However, these figures do not represent the total number of
depository subscriptions to the electronic services because each
depository
library could register for as many as 10 subscriptions while being
counted
as having made only a single item selection.

Currently, depository libraries may select Congressional bills and
resolutions in both microfiche and electronic formats. Under the
policies
laid out in the Federal Depository Library Program: Information
Dissemination and Access Strategic Plan, FY 1996 - FY 2001 (Strategic
Plan)
for the FDLP, this will no longer be an option for depository libraries as
all dual distribution will be discontinued. The Strategic Plan specifies
that:

Redundant dissemination of content in different formats; e.g. paper
and microfiche, or microfiche and electronic, or CD-ROM and
online,
will be reduced. In making the decision to eliminate redundant
versions of the same content, LPS will consider such factors as the
usability, intended audience, time sensitivity, and costs of the
various formats. Only "core" paper titles such as those listed in
Appendix A represent potential duplicate distribution, as their
content also may be available electronically.

DISSEMINATION ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A

Eliminate all microfiche distribution to depository libraries and make
Congressional bills and resolutions available strictly through the GPO
Access WAIS server. The PDF files for the bills also could be mounted
for
FTP download. This would allow libraries who only have access to the
bills
database through SWAIS to obtain the more useful PDF files.

Benefits

- Timely delivery of the information.

- $94,940 currently spent for microfiche distribution is saved,
although this is offset by increased depository usage of the WAIS
server.

- No new product development is required.

- PDF files provide exact images of the typeset bills and can be
searched, printed, and cut and pasted into other documents.
Therefore the information is more useful in this format than it is
on microfiche.

Disadvantages/Problems

- Distribution costs will be higher than for microfiche. It is
estimated that 11.41% of the WAIS server currently is being used
for
the bills database. Based upon this figure, the estimated
percentage of WAIS costs that can be attributed to the bills
database is $138,000 per year. This is $43,060 more than
distribution costs for microfiche. However, as the bills currently
are distributed in both microfiche and electronic format, moving
solely to electronic dissemination will reduce costs overall by
eliminating dual distribution.

- The number of depository libraries that will be able to access this
information will decline. Preliminary results from the 1995
Biennial Survey indicate less than 50% of depository libraries have
computer terminals with Internet access available for public use.
Of those libraries who do not provide Internet access for the
public, 169 (12.3%) said they have no plans to obtain it. The
percentages of depository libraries with Internet access for public
patrons are as follows:

E-mail 21.4%
Telnet 38.9%
FTP 30.8%
World Wide Web (graphical) 37.6%
World Wide Web (non-graphical) 27.3%

The revised minimum technical guidelines for depository libraries
(January 1995) recommend that libraries try to establish a SLIP/PPP
Internet connection. The Depository Library Council has
recommended
that these guidelines be made requirements effective October 1,
1996.

- As more Congressional sessions are added to the GPO Access WAIS
server it
will be necessary to remove older, less frequently used bills. If
depository access to historical files is to be ensured, a less costly,
permanent access method will be needed to supplement access to the
bills through GPO Access. This may mean production of a CD-ROM
or
mounting of the PDF and ASCII files for FTP downloading after a
predetermined period of time.

Alternative B

Eliminate microfiche distribution of the Congressional bills and
resolutions in favor of a monthly cumulative CD-ROM containing the
PDF
files. Depository libraries still would be able to access the GPO Access
service. Producing and distributing 12 discs a year would cost
approximately $60,908. This figure can be broken down as follows:

Mastering of twelve discs per year $ 21,000
Replication of 859 discs plus 20 claims
copies @ $3.50 distributed monthly $ 36,918
Postage (estimated $0.29 per disc) $ 2,990
Total cost of discs distributed monthly $ 60,908

Benefits

- Total costs savings of $34,032 over the current cost for microfiche
distribution of the same material.

- Depository libraries are better equipped to handle CD-ROM titles
than
they are to handle Government electronic information services.
According to preliminary results from the 1995 Biennial Survey,
83.1% of all depository libraries had CD-ROM capability at a
stand-alone workstation. In addition, the revised technical
guidelines for depository libraries recommend libraries acquire a
single or multiple platter CD-ROM drive compatible with the ISO
9660
standard.

- CD-ROM is a good media for depository distribution. As a
read-only
media, CD-ROM assures the integrity of the data, and the estimated
media life of a CD-ROM is 30 years or more. However, the
longevity
of the retrieval and display software frequently used on CD-ROM
titles is less certain due to dependency on specific computer
operating systems or other technology that may become obsolete
more
rapidly than the physical media.

- The PDF files provide exact images of the typeset bills and can be
searched, printed, and cut and pasted into other documents.
Therefore the information is much more useful in this format than
it
would be on microfiche. However, although PDF is an open format,
it
is software dependent and therefore not accepted by NARA for
preservation.

Disadvantages/Problems

- Although timeliness of a monthly CD-ROM might be equivalent to
that
of microfiche, it does not compare with the speed at which
information could be made available through an electronic
information service.

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

Technical Capabilities of Depository Libraries

Information currently available concerning the technical capabilities
of depository libraries and the technical expertise of both libraries
and their patrons is not substantive.

As more information in the FDLP is converted to electronic formats
and
discontinued in paper and/or microfiche, the number of, and cost for,
computer terminals, CD-ROM drives, printers, and other equipment
and
software needed to access Government information becomes
increasingly
relevant. Preliminary estimates from the 1995 Biennial Survey of
depository libraries indicate that almost 7% would withdraw or
consider withdrawing from the program if it became exclusively
electronic.

Attachment D-8

Task 8B: Case Study on the Congressional Serial Set

Attachment D-8

TASK 8B: Evaluation of the costs and benefits of converting
Congressional
Documents and Reports to electronic format for distribution through
the
Federal Depository Library Program, even though currently a
substantial
amount of the source data is not available to GPO in machine readable
form.

METHODOLOGY

The Report of the Serial Set Study Group was submitted to the Public
Printer on October 7, 1994. That report identified the then current
costs
of producing the Serial Set (Documents and Reports) and projected
costs for
four dissemination alternatives, including several electronic options.
This report re-examines those options in light of current GPO technical
capabilities and refined cost data. [Note: for the purpose of this task,
the focus will be on distribution to depository libraries, not on
distirbution to International Exchange System partners (16) or posterity
(22) libraries.]

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Congressional Serial Set comprises a significant portion of the
historical record of the work of Congress. The legal basis for the
compilation, binding, numbering and distribution of the bound Serial
Set is
contained in 44 U.S.C. 701, 719 and 738. The Serial Set currently
includes Senate and House documents, congressional committee
reports,
Presidential and other executive publications, treaty documents, and
selected reports of non-governmental organizations.

From June 13, 1994 to October 7, 1994, the Serial Set Study Group
examined
alternate formats and cost reduction strategies for issuing the Serial Set
(Documents and Reports). The study group consisted of
representatives from
the Government Printing Office (GPO), the Joint Committee on Printing
(JCP), and the library community. The final report from the Serial Set
Study Group evaluated the benefits and drawbacks of various
dissemination
alternatives.

Since the 1994 Report of the Serial Set Study Group, new cost data has
come
to light. GPO's CD-ROM production capability and the cost to produce
discs
now is very clearly defined, and shows a significant reduction over the
cost estimates projected in the 1994 Report. The 1994 Report based
CD-ROM
costs on the estimate of producing the test disc for the Congressional
Record CD-ROM Pilot Project. The cost estimate to master the disc for
that
project was $212,900. More than half of that cost, $130,000, was to
write
and test software. Current GPO CD-ROM production costs are much
lower.

GPO receives approximately 80% of reports from Congress in machine
readable
format and 20% as camera copy. Documents are more of a problem;
only 20%
are received from Congress in machine readable format and 80% as
camera
copy. It is necessary either to obtain electronic source files from
Congress or convert the information received in camera copy to
machine
readable form by scanning it using software such as Adobe Acrobat
Capture.
Proofing and correction are necessary to assure accuracy of the data
recognized by the software. If the Acrobat software does not recognize
portions of the document, it converts what it cannot read to an image.
The
images are non-searchable, making the entire document less useful.
The
current resolution of these images is only 300 dots per inch (d.p.i.), an
inadequate resolution for effective use, and the scanned images increase
the file size substantially, inhibiting remote access. Scanning will
remain necessary unless arrangements can be made to receive all of this
information in machine readable format from the Congress, or the
organizations that submit the information to Congress. Consequently,
either a CD-ROM or online version of the Serial Set is feasible only if
Congress requires that the component Documents and Reports not
typeset at
GPO are provided to GPO in a usable electronic format.

FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY DISSEMINATION

Every depository is eligible to receive both slip publications and the
bound Serial Set in either paper and/or microfiche format. Depository
libraries that select the Serial Set in microfiche (755) receive a paper
copy of material too graphically intensive (i.e. four color process) to be
practical for conversion to microfiche. The 1994 Report of the Serial
Set
Study Group indicated that for the 101st Congress, 463 libraries
selected
the bound Serial Set and the slips in paper format (as well as 16
International Exchange and 22 posterity libraries). The current cost of
dissemination per session, based on the actual costs for the 101st
Congress, as reported in the 1994 Report of the Serial Set Study Group,
is
$1,567,000. Most Documents and Reports also are available now
through GPO
Access.

DISSEMINATION ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A

The 1994 Serial Set Study Group recommended that regional libraries
receive
the bound Serial Set in paper format and Documents and Reports in a
CD-ROM
version. Selective libraries could choose access to the slip documents
through the GPO Access service in lieu of either paper or microfiche.
They
also would be able to select either the bound Serial Set in paper or the
Documents and Reports CD-ROM.

Benefits

- Depository libraries have a wide variety of formats to select.

- A phased-in change would minimize the effects of electronic
conversion on depository libraries.

Disadvantages/Problems

- Costs are difficult to quantify, but will be higher under this
phased-in approach.

- The discs will contain files that are not entirely searchable. This
will be a continuing problem until GPO can negotiate with
Congress
to receive all Documents and Reports in machine readable format
or
scan and convert camera copy to machine readable format.

Alternative B

Paper copies of the bound Serial Set would go to regional libraries and
one
library in each state without a regional (62 copies, down from current
425). Libraries not eligible for paper copies would be able to select the
CD-ROM set. Reports and Documents discs would be issued quarterly.
Each
CD-ROM would cumulate for the session. The fourth CD-ROM would
be a final
version at the end of the session. All depository libraries also would
have the option of accessing Documents and Reports from GPO Access.

Benefits

- Costs for CD-ROM and limited paper distribution would be
$391,996 per
session, a total cost savings of $1,070,004 from current costs for
paper distribution to selective depository libraries.

- Depository access to Documents and Reports will be enhanced if
arrangements can be made for GPO to receive electronic copies in a
format that allows rapid conversion and upload.

- CD-ROM is a good media for depository distribution. As a
read-only
media, CD-ROM assures the integrity of the data, and the estimated
media life of a CD-ROM is 30 years or more. [See above.]

Disadvantages/Problems

- Some materials are so graphically intensive or otherwise structured
so as to make conversion to electronic formats difficult. Current
efforts to place Documents and Reports online are leaving off some
graphically intensive items. Eventually all Documents and Reports
will be added to the GPO Access service, but it is taking longer to
provide online access for these type of information products. For
example, as of October 25, 1995, the following Documents and
Reports
were missing from GPO Access for the 104th Congress:

Senate Reports: 3 of 153 or 1.96%
House Reports: 2 of 272 or 0.74%
House Documents: 17 of 119 or 14.29%
Senate Documents: 4 of 7 or 57.14%
Treaty Documents: 2 of 21 or 4.76%
Executive Reports: 0 of 9 or 0%

- The CD-ROM set will contain files that are not entirely searchable
unless all of the information is submitted initially in machine
readable form.

- It is very difficult to ascertain conversion costs for the current
effort to place Documents and Reports online, since all GPO WAIS
work, except GAO Reports, is charged to a single cost "jacket."
However, GPO's production staff indicated that putting Documents
and
Reports online is consuming a total of 6 hours a day for a 5 day
work week.

Alternative C

The same provisions outlined in Alternative B would apply under this
alternative. However, GPO would provide paper copies for any
Documents and
Reports too graphically intensive to practically convert to electronic
format. To determine the impact of continuing this policy, the
production
records for the 100th and 101st Congresses were examined. Of the
Documents
and Reports issued, only 10 Serial Set volumes (9.57%) from the entire
101st Congress, and 13 Serial Set volumes (8.44%) from the 100th
Congress
were not microfilmed. GPO sent microfiche dividers for those
publications
indicating that the material would not be available on microfiche, and
depository libraries subsequently received paper copies of those
missing
microfiche publications.

Benefits

- Libraries would receive paper copies of Documents and Reports too
graphically intensive to convert to electronic format.

Disadvantages/Problems

- Partial distribution in paper would cost $78,194 per session more
than distribution solely in electronic format. This still results
in a total savings of $990,809 over current distribution costs.

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

Depository Library Capabilities

The capability of depository libraries to deal with electronic formats
of Documents and Reports and other electronic publications in the
FDLP
should be studied in depth before converting a significant portion of
depository material to electronic format.

Cost Shifting to Depository Libraries

Hardware and software needed to use electronic information is
costly
for depository libraries. In addition, patrons usually only have a
limited number of workstations available to access electronic
information products, while different copies of paper and microfiche
material can be used by many patrons simultaneously. With
electronic
Government information products, depository libraries do save the
processing and storage costs associated with traditional formats.

Permanent Access to Information

Depository libraries are concerned about the continued availability
of
depository publications. Paper and microfiche formats have life
spans
that can be reasonably predicted. Electronic formats, in rapidly
changing formats, generally have less clearly defined life spans.

Need for Machine Readable Information

GPO must explore methods of obtaining all Documents and Reports
from
Congress in machine readable form in order to improve the quality
and
usefulness of the electronic files, or establish a cost-effective
means to convert camera copy to electronic format. With currently
available software, neither a CD-ROM or online version of the Serial
Set is feasible unless Congress requires that the component
Documents
and Reports not typeset at GPO are provided to GPO in useable
electronic format.

Attachment D-9

Task 8C: Case Study on the Department of Energy (DOE) Research
Reports

Attachment D-9

TASK 8C: Determination of the costs and the impact on public access to
the
Department of Energy (DOE) technical reports through the FDLP as the
Office
of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) moves forward with its
efforts to convert these reports from microfiche to electronic format.

BACKGROUND

The Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical
Information
(DOE/OSTI) is in the process of making the transition from microfiche
to
electronic dissemination. DOE/OSTI is planning a transition to
managing
information in an electronic environment while retaining a variety of
traditional, as well as electronic, dissemination options. The electronic
information management transition is scheduled for the end of FY
1996.
Following the transition, information delivery capabilities will include
both traditional and new media options.

The DOE/OSTI relationship to their laboratories' information has been
described as "centralized management of a decentralized environment."
DOE/OSTI, in partnership with DOE Program Offices, national
laboratories,
and other contractors, is working to implement electronic exchange and
management of the Department's scientific and technical information.
Ultimately, DOE/OSTI expects to receive machine-readable data instead
of
printed reports. Documents submitted in print probably will be
scanned to
TIFF Group 4 (CCITT Standard) format. The image files for the reports
may
be linked to announcement records and made available on the
DOE/OSTI Web
site./1/ However, final access plans for full text electronic information
and corresponding bibliographic records have yet to be determined.
Multiple information delivery options may be possible. Final plans for
access and cost recovery requirements are being studied. No cost
recovery
structure or free dissemination policy has been established yet, but
DOE/OSTI may have to charge to recover costs.

/1/ DOE/OSTI has not yet made a final determination on access options.
At
the time this task force report was released it appeared as if access
through the DOE/OSTI Web site was most likely.

FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY DISTRIBUTION

GPO and DOE/OSTI entered into an Interagency Agreement (IA) in
1984. The
purpose of the agreement, which has been extended through September
30,
1997, is to provide depository libraries with distribution services for
microfiche copies of DOE publications (reports). Approximately 225
depository libraries receive DOE reports from DOE/OSTI. An average
DOE
report title is selected by 135 depository libraries.

Funding for the agreement is a shared responsibility of GPO and
DOE/OSTI.
Following Section 1903 of Title 44, U.S.C., GPO pays only the
distribution
costs for these publications because they are not produced or procured
through GPO. DOE/OSTI is reimbursed by GPO for distribution costs
from the
Salaries and Expense Appropriation, which funds the operation of the
Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). DOE/OSTI absorbs the
reproduction costs of the copies of DOE reports they produce in
microfiche
format for depository libraries.

The basic responsibilities of each agency under the IA are as follows:

DOE/OSTI:

1) Distributes DOE reports in microfiche to the depository libraries
using
distribution profiles specified by GPO based on the selections of the
libraries.

2) Fulfills depository library claims for missing publication(s).

3) Makes shipments to depository libraries at the most economical rate
for
each shipment.

4) Provides announcements, abstracts and indexing services for these
reports, through both print media and DOE electronic information
services. (GPO does not catalog these publications or list them in
the Monthly Catalog.)

GPO:

1) Pays the shipping costs for DOE publications.

2) Reimburses the negotiated cost for distribution and handling.

3) Provides to DOE/OSTI mailing lists of depository libraries indicating
which categories of reports the libraries are to receive.

The following statistical and cost data is taken from fiscal years 1993
through 1995. For each fiscal year, the total cost budgeted for
distribution of DOE microfiche, and the number of titles and copies
distributed is shown.

Fiscal Year Amount GPO Unique Average No. Copies GPO's Cost
Reimburses Reports Libraries Shipped Per Copy
DOE/OSTI Selecting
Each Title

1993 $146,000 13,900 147 2,043,963 $0.139
1994 $181,433 15,365 145 2,231,929 $0.123
1995 $196,208 17,117 135 2,317,335 $0.118

DOE reports produced in microfiche will be available to depository
libraries throughout FY 1996. Beyond that time, as stated in the
Background, "No cost recovery structure or free dissemination policy
has
been established yet, but DOE/OSTI may have to charge to recover
costs."
Resolution of this issue will be based on further analysis of access
options.

DISSEMINATION ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A

DOE/OSTI allows unlimited free access to depository libraries through
its
Web site. No tangible information products (microfiche, hard copy, or
CD-ROM) will be available through the FDLP.

Benefits

- Results in an estimated cost savings to the Government of at least
$200,000 annually; the amount that GPO formerly spent on
microfiche
distribution. While DOE/OSTI may realize some cost-savings from
electronic dissemination, the projected savings probably will not
amount to the estimated $300,000 that DOE/OSTI formerly spent
on
microfiche production for depository libraries. There will be some
offsetting cost increases associated with acquiring new information
technologies, information delivery, and providing permanent
access.
Under this alternative, DOE/OSTI would absorb such costs.

- Additional libraries will be able to serve the public with electronic
access to the DOE Web site. The selection of DOE reports will be
made on a just-in-time, rather than a just-in-case, basis.
Libraries will obtain only those titles actually needed by their
patrons.

Disadvantages/Problems

- Savings to DOE from eliminating microfiche are offset, at least in
part, by increased costs for such things as additional computer
resources and user support. Usage by depository libraries would
involve some incremental expense for DOE/OSTI.

- Depository libraries and users who access the DOE Web site
through a
modem, rather than a full Internet connection, will experience
difficulties downloading because of the size of the image files.

Alternative B

DOE/OSTI allows depository access to its Web site, with the
incremental
costs of FDLP usage paid from GPO's S&E appropriation. No tangible
information products (microfiche, hard copy, or CD-ROM) will be
available
through the FDLP.

Benefits

- As with Alternative A, additional libraries will be able to serve the
public with electronic access to the DOE Web site.

- The selection of DOE reports will be made on a just-in-time, rather
than a just- in-case, basis. Libraries will obtain only those
titles actually needed by their patrons.

- Results in an estimated cost savings to the Government of at least
$200,000 annually; the amount that GPO formerly spent on
microfiche
distribution. As in Alternative A, there will be some offsetting
cost increases associated with acquiring new information
technologies, information delivery, and providing permanent
access.
Under this alternative, DOE/OSTI would recover a portion of such
costs from GPO for depository library use.

Disadvantages

- The potential savings to GPO from eliminating microfiche may be
offset substantially by fees paid to DOE/OSTI for depository access.
Unless an estimated or negotiated fee is established, this would be
more expensive to GPO than Alternative A.

- DOE/OSTI and GPO would need to develop a cost-recovery fee
schedule
for this alternative. Although a negotiated amount could be less
problematic to administer, it might not accurately recover the costs
associated with depository library usage. However, the
administrative burden of measuring FDLP usage might increase
costs
for both DOE/OSTI and GPO.

- Depository libraries and users who access the DOE Web site
through a
modem, rather than a full Internet connection, will experience
difficulties downloading because of the size of the image files.

Alternative C

In lieu of access to the DOE Web site, the information could be made
available to depository libraries on CD-ROM discs that are "packed"
with
reports in random order. GPO would acquire the DOE image files for
material suitable for depository distribution and premaster the discs.
In
estimating costs for this alternative, it was assumed that no customized
distribution would be available, and that each CD-ROM would be sent
to 225
libraries, the number which currently select DOE reports. DOE/OSTI
estimates 125 reports could be included on each CD-ROM. Assuming
issuance
of 15,000 reports per year, this would require 120 discs. Costs to the
FDLP would include $40,500 for disc replication and additional costs of
approximately $87,000 per year for premastering (4-6 hours of
preparation @
$75/hr + $350 master disc = $725 per disc X 120 discs per year).

Benefits

- Currently depository libraries are better equipped to handle
CD-ROM
titles than to provide Web access. The 1995 Biennial Survey of
Depository Libraries showed that 83% had a stand-alone
workstation
with CD-ROM drive available for their public patrons.

- CD-ROM provides for permanent access to the reports in locations
throughout the country, without dependence on the DOE Web site.

- Downloading large image files locally from the CD-ROM set will not
be
as difficult as access to the DOE Web site through a modem.

- DOE computer resources do not experience additional load from
depository library or general public access, since public users can
be directed to depository libraries.

Disadvantages/Problems

- CD-ROM access will not be as timely as direct access through a
Government electronic information service, but will be comparable
in
timeliness to the current microfiche distribution.

- Additional costs will be incurred by GPO to create and maintain
indexes to locate specific reports on the multi-disc set.

- As with the microfiche, depository libraries that do not select the
DOE reports on CD-ROM will continue to depend on other
depository
libraries for access to individual DOE reports. Users will have to
go to one of the depository libraries that has the DOE reports on
CD-ROM to use the materials.

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

Permanent Public Access

There is no mechanism or policy in place to ensure permanent public
access when dissemination is from an agency Web site. There is no
guarantee that if information is removed from a Web site the
information will remain available to the FDLP. GPO will seek to
establish arrangements under authority of the FDLP among program
partner organizations, including agencies, GPO, NARA, or
cooperating
depository libraries, to ensure permanent access to the information
for depository library and public use.

Agency Missions and Constituencies

Many Web sites are created in order to serve an agency's primary
constituency. Use of these Web sites by the general public through
the FDLP may strain an agency's equipment and tie up limited access
channels, potentially blocking out constituents for whom the site
was
created in the first place.

Possible Limitations or Restrictions on Depository Library Access

Depository libraries need to be able to access agency Web sites to
serve multiple simultaneous users, particularly in institutions which
have a high level of interest in scientific and technical information
among their users. Agency services should be designed to permit
multiple simultaneous users from the same depository library,
without
such limitations as a single-user password.

Attachment D-10

Task 8D: Case Study on the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)
Reports

Attachment D-10

TASK 8D: Identification of issues that must be addressed when an
agency no
longer makes electronic information products available at its Web site
and
the site contains information that needs to remain available to the
public
through the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) and/or to be
transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA).

BACKGROUND

The use of Web sites as a means to disseminate information is
becoming
increasingly common among Government agencies. It is also likely that
agencies will begin to use their Web sites to distribute information not
available in any other format. These Web sites are in essence forms of
publication and therefore may be Federal records as defined by 44
U.S.C.
3301. However, the ease in which these sites can be established and
modified creates problems for both the Government Printing Office
(GPO) and
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) which share
an
interest in identifying and preserving the valuable information on these
Web sites.

GPO and NARA have dissimilar, but complementary, goals to assure
public
access for the full life cycle of this information. GPO must address
measures that ensure permanent public access for information products
on
Internet sites that is within the scope of the FDLP/1/. NARA focuses
narrowly on that portion of the information which has historic value.
Its
goal is to assure preservation of information/2/. Records schedules can
serve as a tool for identifying these sites, but GPO and NARA will have
to
work together to create ways in which information can be transferred
without added burden to publishing agencies.

/1/ For purposes of this report, permanent access means that
Government
information products within the scope of the FDLP remain available
for
continuous, no fee public access through the program. For emphasis,
the phrase permanent public access is sometimes used with the same
definition.

/2/ For purposes of this report, preservation means that official records
of the Federal Government, including Government information
products
made available through the FDLP, which have been determined to
have
sufficient historical or other value to warrant being held and
maintained in trust for future generations of Americans, are retained
by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

In addition to any agency transfer of information products, NARA
accepts
for deposit from GPO one copy of every information product cataloged
through the Cataloging and Indexing Program and/or distributed by
GPO
through the FDLP. GPO transfers a full collection to NARA after the
completion of each four-year Presidential term. These procedures have
resulted in the granting of preservation status within NARA to all
Government information products in the CIP or FDLP as part of the
definitive official collection of U. S. Government publications. At
present this status is extended to all paper and microfiche publications
and to all electronic products that are in formats acceptable to NARA
for
archival purposes (36 CFR 1228.188). Recently NARA has begun to
accept for
reference purposes only, without accessioning for preservation,
CD-ROM
titles and other electronic products that are software dependent and,
therefore, not in archival format./3/

/3/ NARA accepts such materials for reference purposes only and
maintains
them for public use so long as the technology and software permit.
However, NARA does not take extraordinary measures to ensure
long-term
access or preservation of the content, and such a transfer does not
meet the publishing agency's obligation for transfer of the
information
to NARA for preservation.

Issues concerning near-term, permanent access to, and preservation of,
information on agency Internet sites were brought to the forefront by
the
closing of the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) on September 29,
1995.
OTA's Web site, OTA Online, included a catalog of all the reports
produced
by OTA from 1972 to 1995, ASCII text files of the 1994 reports, and
both
ASCII and Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) files of the
1995
reports. The 1995 reports include some reports that will not be
published
formally. OTA made arrangements to mount information from OTA
Online on
GPO's Web site. The final transfer to GPO is scheduled for Summer
1996.
Since November 1, 1995, the OTA Web site also has been mirrored by
the
National Academy of Sciences and the Woodrow Wilson Public and
International Affairs at Princeton University.

OTA also has a contract to scan the texts of all their reports dating from
1972 and convert them to PDF. The PDF files will be packaged on a set
of
five CD-ROM discs, along with much of the information available via
OTA
Online and some additional historical material. The CD-ROM
collection will
be distributed to depository libraries and sold through GPO.

FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY DISTRIBUTION

Most of the OTA information available in electronic format is available
in
other formats through the FDLP. The only exceptions are the reports
and/or
summaries that still are being completed and will not be published
formally.

DISSEMINATION ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A

GPO will mount the information from OTA on its own Web site for
depository
library access. When available, both ASCII and PDF files will be
offered.
The CD-ROM collection of OTA reports will be distributed to
depository
libraries upon completion.

Benefits

- Permanent public access to the information is maintained through
the
FDLP.

- A variety of methods are available for accessing OTA information.

- At the present time more depository libraries are equipped with
CD-ROM drives than have Web access for the public.

Disadvantages/Problems

- Some OTA information is distributed to depository libraries in three
different formats: paper, CD-ROM, and through the GPO Web site.

- GPO incurs additional costs for maintaining the information on its
Web site. OTA is responsible only for the costs related to the
initial mounting of the information.

- Reports that have been scanned are not entirely searchable.
Although
the reports will be scanned using Adobe Acrobat Capture, which
will
convert them to machine readable form, non-recognizable text will
be
retained as images. In addition, due to time constraints, the
scanned reports will not be reviewed.

- The PDF format is software dependent and therefore not an
acceptable
format for preservation by NARA. However, NARA could accept the
CD-ROM set from GPO for reference purposes as part of the
definitive
official collection of U. S. Government publications./4/

/4/ When NARA accepts materials in software-dependent formats for
convenience of reference, NARA maintains them for public use as
long as
the technology and software permit. However, NARA does not take
extraordinary measures to ensure long-term access to, or preservation
of, the material. Furthermore, such a transfer does not meet the
publishing agency's obligation for transfer of the information to
NARA
for preservation unless it also includes the software to migrate the
information to a software-independent format, so that NARA can
preserve
it on an archival media.

Alternative B

The OTA CD-ROM set will be distributed to depository libraries. After
a
predetermined period of time, OTA information will be removed from
the GPO
Web site.

Benefits

- Permanent public access to the information is maintained through
the
FDLP.

- More depository libraries are equipped with CD-ROM drives than
have
Web access for the public.

- CD-ROM is a good media for depository distribution. As a
read-only
media, CD-ROM assures the integrity of the data, and the estimated
media life of a CD-ROM is 30 years or more. [See above.]

- Dual distribution in electronic format is eliminated.

Disadvantages/Problems

- Scanned reports contain non-searchable portions and are not
reviewed.

- The CD-ROM set cannot be accessioned by NARA for preservation
because
it uses the PDF software-dependent format. [See above.]

- Public access to the reports is available only at or through
depository libraries, although as mentioned, there are two other
private Web sites that will be providing this information for at
least a period of time.

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED (FDLP)

Archival Responsibilities

Whenever possible, GPO will coordinate with NARA to transfer
electronic information products distributed to depository libraries or
held by GPO for remote access to NARA for preservation. If GPO
makes
agency electronic information products available for remote access,
then the information becomes part of GPO's records and GPO will be
responsible for its disposition (or transfer) to NARA as part of the
official collection of Government information products listed in the
Monthly Catalog or distributed through the FDLP. If an agency has
maintained its electronic Government information products and
GPO
points to the agency electronic information service for the FDLP, it
will be the legal responsibility of the individual agency to transfer
their information products to NARA.

GPO and NARA will need to determine whether statutory changes
are
needed to clarify each agencies' respective roles and responsibilities
for permanent access and preservation of electronic Government
information products.

Life Cycle of Electronic Government Information Products

GPO and NARA will need to define a life cycle for electronic
Government information products, beginning with the original
document
as an electronic file and ending with its final disposition. It is
NARA's responsibility to determine whether an electronic
Government
information product warrants continued preservation by the
Government.
This responsibility is distinct from GPO's responsibility to provide
permanent public access to the same information through the FDLP.
In
accordance with its responsibility for assuring permanent access,
GPO
will assume such costs as data preparation for mounting,
maintenance
and storage, as well as ongoing costs necessary to minimize
deterioration and assure technological currency. GPO also will
assume
responsibility for coordinating a distributed system that provides
continuous, permanent public access to Government information
products
within the scope of the program. This will require coordination with
all of the institutional program stakeholders: information producing
agencies, GPO, depository libraries, and NARA.

Format Standards

GPO expects to receive electronic information provided by agencies
in
many formats. However, GPO needs to determine a small number of
"recommended standard formats" for the dissemination of electronic
Government information products to depository libraries and remote
access through the GPO Access services. It is anticipated that
certain electronic source files provided to GPO by agencies will not
lend themselves readily to dissemination or remote access in their
original formats. Whenever it is possible and cost-effective to do
so, GPO will reformat the information into formats more suitable for
dissemination and permanent access.

GPO will offer all electronic Government information products in its
custody to NARA in accordance with the approved GPO record
disposition
schedules. This does not imply that GPO will assume the
responsibility of converting this information for NARA if the file
format used for permanent access through GPO Access is not
suitable
for the preservation requirements of NARA. It is expected that GPO
may have electronic information that will not be accepted by NARA
for
preservation because of file formats. GPO and NARA must seek to
coordinate their efforts to assure that format standards used by GPO
for permanent public access to electronic information are, or can be
converted easily to, formats acceptable to NARA.

Software Dependent Information

Some electronic Government information products produced by
agencies
in particular formats (such as certain types of spreadsheet files) are
embedded with file structures that only have intrinsic value when
used
with particular software. If this information is converted to another
generic format, such as ASCII, it loses value for the user. This is a
major issue for GPO, which will need to make this information
available through the FDLP, and NARA, which currently will not
accept
electronic information that is software dependent.

ARCHIVAL BACKGROUND

The OTA Web site contains two main types of information: 1)
Organizational
Structure and Members, and 2) Publications. The organizational
structure,
lists of Technology Assessment Board (TAB) and Technology
Assessment
Advisory Council (TAAC) members, can be found in the annual reports
of OTA,
which are scheduled for permanent retention under N1-444-94-1.
Additional
information on the members' work with OTA is scheduled as permanent
in
TAB/TAAC Member Files. The original site also contained information
on
ongoing projects, how to contact the staff, different electronic methods
of
obtaining publications, and links to other Government sites. Some of
these
are no longer appropriate since the agency has ceased to exist.

All of the information in the OTA Web site has been scheduled in a
variety
of different records covered by different items in the schedule.
However,
the schedule does not directly apply to the OTA Web site. The OTA
Web site
can be viewed as another "publication" used by OTA to disseminate
information. The existence of the Web site, as well as its content,
provide evidence of the image OTA wanted to portray to the public and
the
work it accomplished. Even though the information exists, in bits and
pieces, among the records of OTA (records covered by the schedule), by
bringing this information together, and "packaging" it in a different
way,
OTA has created a different record that is not covered in the schedule.
Thus, the OTA Web site should be scheduled as an item under the office
that
manages and maintains the Web site.

In FY 1995, the National Archives, Center for Electronic Records
(Center),
scheduled and appraised the ASCII text files of the 1994 and 1995
reports
(N1-444-94-1). These ASCII files were appraised as temporary because
they
do not contain the graphs, charts, and photographs which are integral
to
the publication, thus diminishing their value. At present, the Center for
Electronic Records will not accession files that are dependent on any
specific software package. This is referred to as software dependence.
This precludes the Center from accessioning the reports produced using
ADOBE software. For these reasons, NARA has chosen to maintain the
print
formats of all the reports produced by OTA. However, NARA will
accession
the ASCII text file for the Catalog of Publications, 1972-1995
(N1-444-96-1). This file is used to upload the Catalog onto the OTA
Web
site. In the case of OTA electronic information, NARA will accession
only
the ASCII file used to create the Catalog of Publications, 1972-1995.
Since OTA is able to send the file in the software independent format
specified in 36 CFR 1228.188, OTA will transfer the file directly to
NARA,
Center for Electronic Records.

NARA also will receive electronic versions of the OTA reports in three
different formats: ASCII, Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), and
PDF. These
files will not be accessioned by NARA, but will be used to examine
technical issues of the different formats. However, NARA may retain
for a
limited time the HTML and/or PDF format as an extra copy for
convenience of
reference. HTML files are essentially ASCII files that contain text which
is "tagged" using a standardized language. HTML was created as a
standardized way to format documents, so that they could be read and
interpreted by a variety of different computer platforms. These
commands
are written using ASCII characters. Any word processing software
package
can be used to tag a document with HTML commands. However, there
are
software packages which were developed to "markup" documents with
HTML
commands. If a tagged document is printed out the HTML commands
are
visible along with the text of the document. Therefore these files are
software independent and can be treated as ASCII files. If needed, PDF
files also can be converted to ASCII.

Despite the fact that all these files are or can be transferred into
software independent files, the original reports contain graphics, which
cannot be software independent. PDF files contain graphics and the
HTML
files contain links to graphics. That is, the graphics "reside" elsewhere,
not in the tagged document.

APPRAISAL CONSIDERATIONS

What information is in the Home Page, and which files (and addresses)
does
it link to? What is the structure/"hierarchy" of the site?

There is a distinction between a Home Page and a Web site. A Home
Page is the first "page" of a site. It usually contains an
introduction or welcome statement. The Home Page provides links
to
other pages. There are two main types of links: a) links to other
files (pages) in the same location, and b) links to other Web sites.
A Web site can be described as the sum of a Home Page and all the
files that are linked to it. It is important to determine which file
is the Home Page and trace how other pages are linked to the Home
Page
and other pages. The structure of the page can provide evidence as
to
what the agency feels its primary mission is and how it wants to
portray itself to the general public.

Need to determine criteria/"draw lines" to limit the "links" that will be
appraised.

In appraising a Web site it is necessary to examine the Home Page
and
the files that are linked. However, the links to other sites should
be appraised with the records of the agencies that maintain those
sites. If there is a link to a site which maintains information for
the site being appraised, and the agency (of the records being
appraised) is responsible for the content, then that particular link
should be considered for appraisal. This does not mean that a whole
new site is to be appraised along with the first site. A precedent
for this can be found in N1-149-95-1P, Item 20.8, VAX Client Server,
memo from NSXA to NIR dated January 9, 1995 "[Electronic
Photocomposition Division (EPD)] uploads the publications, which
they
receive on tape or disk. EPD is not responsible for the creation or
content of the publications. The individual agencies that

send the publications to be are uploaded into the system are
responsible for all the data and information. For these reasons, the
files in the VAX Client Server should not be appraised as GPO
records..."

Which files within a site should be accessioned? Do all the files need to
be brought in? Is it adequate to simply document that a particular link
contained certain information which can be obtained among the other
records
of the agency? If links to other sites, document the name and agency
which
maintained the site?

The determination of specific files in a Web site that should be
accessioned and which links should be documented or appraised
must be
done on a case by case basis.

APPRAISAL ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A

Accession the records of the persons or committees responsible for
maintaining the Web site. The records of these persons or committees
should reflect the content and structure of the site. In fact, these files
serve as documentation of the electronic files posted on the Web site.
Thus, the information that appeared on the Web site could be
reconstructed.
In this case, we would be documenting the existence of a Web site
without
actually accessioning the information on the Web site.

Benefits

- This approach avoids the duplication of information NARA would
be
accessioning. The information provided by the persons or
committees
in charge of the site, would provide researchers with evidence of
the information which was posted and they would then search out
the
desired documents from the records of that agency. This would be
especially true of larger agencies which strictly control the
information on their Web sites.

Disadvantages/Problems

- Not all agencies have a centralized place where this information can
be found. In smaller agencies, the Web sites might be constructed
and maintained by interns or interested personnel, yet their records
may not provide adequate information on the content and structure
of
the Web site.

- This option also ignores the possibility that in the future,
information posted on the Web site might not appear in any other
format. In these cases, it is necessary not only to appraise the
records of those maintaining the files, but the files on the Web
site itself.

Alternative B

Accession all the files within the Web site. These could be viewed
through
a browser. However, it is important to note that different browsers
servers will "interpret" the HTML commands differently. Also,

most Web sites contain links to graphics and other sites, therefore
those
links or graphics would not be functional. In this case, the links can be
documented by identifying the institution maintaining that site and
providing a brief description of the content of those sites.

Benefits

- The Web site can be preserved in a fashion through which
researchers
will be able to "navigate." Researchers also would get a better idea
of the original structure of the site.

Disadvantages/Problems

- At the moment graphics cannot be preserved, an integral part of
most
Web sites.

- The sheer size of some sites and the number of links that must be
accounted for make them difficult to document.

- The possibility exists for duplicating information that already
exists among the records of the agency.

Alternative C

Accession selected files from the Web site, as well as preserving the
records of the persons, offices, or committees maintaining the site.
Valuable files, which may not exist in any other format or are more
valuable in electronic format, can be preserved. These files could be
either requested from the agency without HTML markup (in plain
ASCII) or
NARA could maintain the markup.

Benefits

- This approach ensures the preservation of unique files or valuable
information without the burden of accessioning the whole site.

Disadvantages/Problems

- In accessioning select files, it is important to document the
context. The documentation package would include technical
information, but also information of the content of the site where
the selected file was originally placed.

Web sites are always changing. Files can be added, updated, and
deleted
easily. This poses a problem for accessioning files in a Web site. The
solution proposed in the "Preserving Digital Information: Draft Report
of
the Task Force on Archiving of Digital Information" (August 24, 1995) is
to
take "periodic snapshots" of the pages in a site. Ultimately, the agency
is responsible for scheduling the files in their Web site. NARA can work
with the agency to develop a strategy for accessioning files which
constantly are being changed.

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

Identifying Information for Permanent Access and Preservation

How can Web sites with valuable information be identified? Federal
agencies are creating a large number of Web sites. Once agencies are
no longer interested in maintaining that information, there is no
mechanism in place to provide permanent access to that information
for
future users through the FDLP. As Federal records, the Web sites
must
be scheduled along with other agency records. Therefore, records
schedules could serve as a tool to identify valuable Government
information on Web sites and to assure its preservation by NARA.
These schedules may also facilitate the identification of electronic
Government information products within the scope of the FDLP for
which
permanent access should be arranged.

Transfer of Information to GPO and NARA

Once identified, what information from the Web sites should be
transferred? As explained earlier, GPO and NARA have different
responsibilities and goals, so each agency will have to decide what
information on agency Web sites is within the scope of its
responsibility. Sometimes both agencies will be interested in the
same information. GPO is responsible for providing Government
information products for current and permanent public access
through
the FDLP. Since NARA is interested in maintaining indefinitely
information with historic value, it needs to apply criteria for
determining which information from agency Web sites warrants
preservation by the Government.

How should this information be transferred to GPO and/or NARA
without
added burden to the agencies? GPO and NARA will have to work
together
to identify ways in which agencies can transfer the information
without added burden.

Permanent Access to Electronic Government Information Products

If an agency decides to discontinue access through their Web site to
Government information products with the scope of the FDLP, GPO
has a
responsibility to obtain those information products and arrange for
their permanent access through the FDLP. What is the most
cost-effective and useful method for maintaining permanent access
to
electronic Government information products available from agency
Web
sites or other Government electronic information services? The
migration of electronic Government information products over a
period
of years can be very costly. If information products already have
been distributed in paper, microfiche or CD-ROM, does it make
sense to
provide permanent access to the information through a Government
electronic information service?

Differences Between the Life Cycle of Government Information
Products in
Electronic vs. Traditional Formats

How is the life cycle for electronic Government information products
different from that of traditional formats like paper and microfiche?
What part of the information dissemination process must be
changed in
order to ensure permanent access through the FDLP and the
preservation
by NARA of information on agency Web sites?

Attachment D-11

Task 9: Evaluation of Inclusion in Electronic Formats of Materials
Not
Traditionally Included in the FDLP in Either Paper or Microfiche

Attachment D-11

TASK 9: Evaluation of issues surrounding inclusion in electronic
formats of
materials not traditionally included in the FDLP in either paper or
microfiche. Examples includes Securities and Exchange Commission
EDGAR
data (Task 9A, Attachment D-12), Federal District and Circuit Court
opinions (Task 9B, Attachment D-13), patents, military specifications,
Congressional Research Service reports, and a variety of other scientific
and technical information (primarily contractor reports).

BACKGROUND

Government information products which have not been included in the
depository library program in "traditional," or non-electronic, formats
come from all three branches of government. Two categories were
specifically identified under this task for separate case studies: filings
with the SEC (now available through the EDGAR system) (Task 9A,
Attachment
D-12) and Federal District and Circuit Court Opinions (Task 9B,
Attachment
D-13). Other categories studied included patents; military
specifications;
Congressional Research Service publications; and scientific/technical
reports from several agencies. These materials have not been included
in
the FDLP for a variety of reasons, but as publishing agencies migrate to
electronic dissemination methods, it may be possible to expand public
access to these materials through the FDLP.

This task force report covers a very wide variety of materials from many
sources, and expanded access to these materials might involve more
than one
solution. The alternatives outlined below should not be considered
mutually exclusive. A combination of alternatives might address
varying
agency and FDLP needs in the most cost-effective way. Alternative F
was
submitted after the original task force report was completed, and is
provided here as an additional alternative available for some materials
not
currently in the FDLP, but it has not received the same opportunity for
analysis and public comment as the others.

1) Patents

The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) disseminates information
through a
combination of PTO search facilities, Patent and Trademark Depository
Libraries, and commercial dissemination from private vendors who
purchase
bulk data from the PTO at marginal cost. Bibliographic descriptions
and
some full text are available in electronic formats. The patent database
was a major component of the two year federally-funded Internet Town
Hall,
a cooperative project of Internet Multicasting Service and New York
University which provided free Internet access. Since the end of that
project, the PTO has been providing direct Internet access to the
descriptive database. The plan is to offer searchable bibliographic text
for approximately 20 years of patents. This free system will not include
the full text of the patents.

The PTO called an open meeting for December 15, 1995, to:

[G]ain input into how it can maximize the potential of its
information dissemination program. In view of technology changes,
revisions to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular
A-130,
and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13), the
PTO
will review existing policies and ... prepare a comprehensive
information dissemination plan.

At the same time, initiatives from the administration and the Congress
are
proposing major changes in the PTO. In a press release September 14,
1995,
Vice President Gore announced that the PTO would be transformed into
a
"performance-driven, customer-oriented organization." While the impact
on
information dissemination is not spelled out, the announcement refers
to
commercial business practices and points out that the PTO is "fully
funded
by user fees."

2) Military Specifications and Standards

Military specifications and standards are not yet available, full text, in
electronic format. They are offered free for delivery by mail from the
Navy Print on Demand System (NPODS). They may be ordered by
"TeleSpecs", a
system which takes automated telephone orders from 7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday. It is not a fax-on-demand system, but orders
are
mailed to requesters the next day. Customers also may buy a
subscription
to an automatic distribution service. This organization also offers paid
subscriptions to an electronic information service (most current) and
CD-ROM version (with bimonthly updates) which include descriptions
of
military specifications and standards and some other databases. Both
services are relatively new and are priced for cost recovery.

3) Congressional Research Service (CRS) Studies

These comprehensive studies from the Library of Congress are very
useful to
the public but are not available through the FDLP, although the Major
Studies and Issue Briefs are obtained and sold by a private vendor.
There
has been considerable interest in the depository library community in
having CRS studies available to the general public. However, CRS is
prohibited by Congress from any public distribution of their material,
unless explicitly authorized by their congressional oversight
committees.
CRS is making their reports increasingly available to Congress in
electronic format via CAPNET, the secure Capitol Hill network, but
access
is limited to congressional offices. Direct public dissemination through
the FDLP would require a change in the current policy by Congress.

4) Scientific and Technical Information

While a great deal of scientific and technical information, including
contractor reports, is distributed through the FDLP, there is also a great
deal which is not in the program. Two agencies have been used in this
task
as representative of the issues for agencies, the GPO, and libraries.

4a) Technical Reports and Guidelines from the Environmental
Protection
Agency (EPA)

The EPA is a decentralized agency in which a number of offices and
research centers produce or contract for technical reports. While
many of these reports are provided to GPO for FDLP distribution,
many
others are not. Some staff members apparently believe that
providing
copies of documents to the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS), or providing a single copy of NTIS diazo microfiche to GPO,
satisfies information dissemination requirements of 44 U.S.C.
Chapter
19. This is a misconception not unique to EPA. Some EPA CD-ROM
titles are provided to depository libraries, but others are not. The
EPA is making major efforts to provide information through an
electronic information service, and this provides additional
opportunities for depository libraries to participate in its
dissemination efforts. No limitations on public access to reports
available through the electronic information service have been
identified, although many EPA reports in traditional formats are
sold
by NTIS.

EPA uses GPO's Federal Bulletin Board to disseminate some of its
information products, thus meeting depository responsibilities. For
example, an important element of EPA regulation is the development
of
Environmental Test Methods and Guidelines. EPA's solution to
public
access includes announcement of the availability of draft guidelines
in the Federal Register. Proposed guidelines are released on the EPA
gopher. Final guidelines are posted on GPO's Federal Bulletin Board.
GPO thus can provide the files for downloading, and also can sell
paper copies to users who prefer that format. EPA staff has
suggested
that there would be a demand for compilations of these materials, on
electronic formats such as CD-ROM. These compilations could be
created by GPO from agency source files.

4b) Technical Reports from the Department of Defense (DOD)

The Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) maintains
collections
of three types of technical reports: classified; unclassified with
limitation of export; and unclassified, unlimited. DTIC maintains a
Technical Reports bibliographic database for both of the unclassified
categories of reports. The database is available for purchase from
DTIC in CD-ROM or through a Government electronic information
service.

Public access is not provided to these products; they are only
available to Government agency personnel, Government contractors,
and
potential Government contractors, who register with DTIC. The
reason
for this restriction is that the databases contain the "unclassified
with limitation of export" category, although DTIC reports that the
vast majority of reports fall in the "unclassified, unlimited"
category.

DTIC forwards copies of all unlimited, unclassified reports to the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) for public sale, but
most are not provided to depository libraries. The NTIS
bibliographic
database, including descriptions of these DTIC reports, is available
for purchase through private vendors on CD-ROM or through
electronic
information services.

DTIC is moving towards electronic storage of data and documents.
The
Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) is an integrated
system
which is moving DTIC from a manual, microfiche-based system to
automated information management and document delivery. The
system
involves document scanning and optical storage. It can generate
microfiche copies, since many DTIC customers still use microfiche.
While the program includes a limited Web trial, DTIC probably will
not
provide public access to technical reports on their Web site because
of security restrictions, and because technical resources must be
devoted to serving primary clientele.

DOD is committed to its DefenseLINK Web site to link and point to
all
DOD home pages and a growing variety of unclassified material
which is
becoming available in electronic form. Some of the materials
available as searchable databases on the Web also are sold in
CD-ROM
format. The DOD must adhere to restrictions on distribution of
information which is classified or limited, and also must assure that
its resources are available to its primary clientele such as
Government employees and contractors. Perhaps a restructured
FDLP
could expand public access to such information by providing a
separate
source for unclassified electronic information products, one which
does not place additional demands on DTIC's own technical
resources.

FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY DISTRIBUTION

This task addressed materials which are not in the program in
traditional
formats (paper, CD-ROM, microfiche or floppy diskette). Each of these
categories of materials is distributed to its primary audience through
Government or cooperative channels, but not through the FDLP. The
Patent
and Trademark Office supports its own reading rooms and depository
library
program; military specifications are available on demand without
charge.
Scientific and technical reports are distributed directly from the
originating agencies and secondarily through NTIS. Because of the
enormous
volume in most of these collections, the cost of depository distribution
in
paper or microfiche would be large, and distribution would also present
a
significant processing and storage burden on depository libraries.
GPO's
decision has been to direct the limited resources available for support
of
depository printing and distribution to materials which do not have
such
specialized audiences and distribution programs. As these materials
become
available electronically, it may be possible to use the FDLP as an
additional channel for public access.

DISSEMINATION ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A

Agency information is available through the Internet to the general
public,
from the agency itself, at no cost to the user. The GPO Pathway locator
services will direct users, including depository libraries, to the agency
site.

Benefits

- Government information products which have not been in the FDLP
are
available without charge to the public in electronic form.

- Libraries can access selected information products on demand,
without
the burden of processing and maintaining large collections.

- Minimal costs are incurred by GPO for inclusion of new information
products in the FDLP.

- The GPO Pathway locator services enhance public access to agency
information.

Disadvantages/Problems

- Depository libraries without Internet capabilities cannot access the
information.

- Delivery of graphics-inclusive contents like specifications and
patents may require considerable communications band-width and
high-end computers at the user end.

- Public access may place additional loads on agency computing and
telecommunication resources, as well as on support services, and
may
present security problems.

- Duration of the availability of the information product is uncertain
unless GPO can establish a formal arrangement with the agency to
ensure permanent access either at the agency site or at a site under
the administrative control of the FDLP.

Alternative B

Agency information products are available electronically for a fee. The
GPO will negotiate an agreement with the agency to pay the costs for
depository library access. The agreement may include limitations on
numbers of users or on remote access via library networks, but will not
include any copyright-like restrictions on the use or reuse of the
information product. The GPO Pathway locator services will lead
depository
libraries to the agency site.

Benefits

- Information products which have not been in the FDLP are
available
without charge to the public, at or through depository libraries, in
electronic form.

- Libraries can access selected information products on demand,
without
the burden of processing and maintaining large collections.

- The GPO Pathway locator services enhance access to agency
information
products.

Disadvantages/Problems

- GPO incurs new costs for access to information products which
have
not been in the program previously.

- Depository libraries without Internet capabilities cannot access the
information.

- Public access may place additional loads on agency computing and
telecommunication resources, as well as on support services, and
may
present security problems.

- Agencies or distributors may see free public access through the
FDLP
as a threat to revenue generation.

Alternative C

GPO establishes a database of information products from agency sites
which
is tailored to the FDLP. Agencies provide electronic source files, or GPO
downloads source files from agency sites.

Benefits

- Government information products which have not been in the FDLP
are
available without charge to the public in electronic form.

- Agencies are relieved of security problems related to unauthorized
access to classified or non-government information products on
their
primary sites.

- Agency computer and telecommunication resources do not
experience
additional loads from depository library or general public access,
as agencies may direct public users to FDLP sites.

Disadvantages/Problems

- GPO incurs new and essentially duplicative costs for access to
information products which have not been in the program
previously.
GPO costs include downloading, reformatting, search mechanisms,
storage, and permanent access.

- Provision must be made for updating dynamic data as it changes on
the
agency site.

Alternative D

Information from Government electronic information services is made
available to depository libraries in CD-ROM format instead of through
direct connections to these services. Agencies produce CD-ROM titles,
with
GPO riding orders for the cost of copies for FDLP distribution, whether
or
not discs are produced or procured through GPO.

Benefits

- Government information products which have not been in the FDLP
previously are available without charge to the public in electronic
form.

- Currently, many depository libraries are better equipped to handle
CD-ROM than Government electronic information services.

- Agency computer resources do not experience additional load from
depository or public access.

- Agency revenue streams from user fees are protected.

Disadvantages/Problems

- GPO and/or agencies incur new costs for access to information
products which have not been in the program previously.

- Large report collections on CD-ROM may require a large number of
disks, creating storage and access pressures in depository
libraries.

- CD-ROM is not as timely for current information as direct access
through an electronic information service, and does not permit
dynamic updating of changing information.

Alternative E

Information products from Government electronic information services
are
made available to depository libraries in CD-ROM format instead of
through
direct connections to these services. GPO obtains agency source files or
downloads files from agency sites, and creates CD-ROM collections for
FDLP
distribution.

Benefits

- Government information products which have not been in the FDLP
becomes available without charge to the public in electronic form.

- Currently, depository libraries are better equipped to handle
CD-ROM
than Government electronic information services.

- Use of information is facilitated by GPO's creating discs with
consistent search interfaces.

- CD-ROM provides for permanent public access in libraries
throughout
the country.

- Agency computer resources do not suffer additional strain from
depository or public access.

- Agency revenue streams from user fees are protected.

Disadvantages/Problems

- GPO incurs new costs for access to information products which
have
not been in the program previously.

- Large report collections on CD-ROM may require a large number of
discs, creating storage and access pressures in libraries.

- CD-ROM is not as timely for current information as direct access
through Government electronic information services, and does not
permit dynamic updating of changing information.

Alternative F (NTIS Proposal for Depository Library Access)

Note: This alternative was proposed by NTIS after the completion of the
original task force report, so it has not received the same opportunity
for
analysis and public comment as the other alternatives. While it
proposes a
program which would not be part of the FDLP, it does identify an
option for
providing public access to federally-funded scientific, technical and
engineering publications from the NTIS collections, so it is included
here
as additional information for the FDLP Study. The description of this
alternative and many of the benefits and disadvantages/problems were
identified by NTIS and are presented in its own words; some of the
benefits
and disadvantages/problems were identified by the task force and GPO
staff,
based on earlier input from the library community.

NTIS has proposed a means to assure the American public access to
information in its collection for free through the depository libraries
without a subsidy from taxpayer funds. Access will be provided to
electronic image files of documents as they become available to NTIS.
The
proposal covers access to image files of documents of scientific,
technical
and related business nature that would be available to the depository
libraries under the current program in paper or microfiche formats as
well
as access to a wide range of materials that have previously been
accessible
to the depository libraries only through the NTIS sales program. The
initial proposal does not include NTIS CD-ROM titles or fee-based
electronic information services available through FedWorld, but it
would
provide easy and immediate access to a substantial number of fugitive
documents not previously available to the FDLP.

NTIS plans to initiate a pilot with approximately 20 depository libraries
by early summer. Pilot participants will have access at no charge to the
full electronic bibliographic records of the incoming NTIS document
stream
and will be able to request downloads of all documents available in
electronic format. The purpose of the test is to establish procedures
and
appropriate operating protocols for complete lights out, 24 hours a day,
seven days a week operation. Expected duration of the test period will
be
approximately nine months, at which time a decision on the full extent
of
access to the depository system should be possible.

NTIS will provide depository libraries with access on demand to the
electronic images of federally funded scientific, technical and
engineering
publications in its collection at no charge, as often as needed, and
without any time limitation in exchange for a simple agreement from
each
library not to release the electronic file outside the library or use it
for commercial purposes. No restrictions of any kind are placed on the
use
or redissemination of documents printed from these electronic files.
Inter-library exchange of these paper or microfiche documents would be
expected to proceed as they currently do with depository library
materials.
Access will be provided through a search system with no charges to the
library for anything it downloads for printing. Files can be printed
locally if the library has a printer with PostScript print capability. The
library or the user would absorb print costs but could make as many
paper
copies as needed.

Currently Defense Department publications are entering the NTIS
collection
in image format. Several other science agencies are making rapid
progress
on migrating to electronic imaging and NTIS is within months of
scanning
most items it receives in paper. Virtually everything entering the NTIS
system should be in electronic image format within a year. NTIS
expects to
intake about 100,000 documents during this fiscal year.

Benefits

- NTIS would make Government information products that have not
been
included the FDLP available for free access in local communities.

- No appropriated funds will be required since NTIS will absorb all
costs of storage and access as a business expense paid for out of
user fees from the NTIS system as a whole and not by the taxpayers.

- A large class of fugitive documents -- those from DOD -- would
immediately become available to the public, and NTIS working
relationships with other major federal producers of technical
information products in electronic form ensure the future
availability of a more comprehensive collection of federal technical
information.

- Libraries could access selected information products on demand
without the burden of storing or indexing large collections or
dealing with individual agencies.

- Depository libraries could provide an advertising vehicle for NTIS
services by increasing public awareness.

Disadvantages/Problems

- Libraries must resist the temptation to release electronic files of
these materials on the World Wide Web. Such a release would
destroy
NTIS' own revenue generating capabilities and eliminate funding to
support free access in the future. NTIS' restrictions apply only to
the document image files themselves and should in no way interfere
with patrons ability to search and locate documents they need.

- Downloading and printing of large PostScript files can require
considerable Internet band-width as well as high-end equipment at
the library.

- Depository libraries would have to accept copyright-like restrictions
on the use and re-use of materials obtained from NTIS through the
FDLP and would be put in the position of enforcing those
restrictions. There is a risk to NTIS' market for these
publications if library patrons (some of whom may be resellers) are
not satisfied with the restrictions imposed by NTIS and do not
comply with them.

- Compliance with NTIS' restrictions may necessitate that use of the
NTIS service be restricted to mediated searches (those conducted by
depository library staff). This would eliminate self-service at
public access workstations and make it more labor intensive
(costly)
for depository libraries, thus precluding some depository libraries
from offering the NTIS service to their patrons and limiting public
access to these materials.

- This alternative as proposed would not be an official part of the
FDLP, so there is no statutory obligation for NTIS to initiate or
sustain it, and no guarantee that this service would be available to
all depository libraries. Since depository obligations under 44
U.S.C. Chapter 19 are for the publishing agencies, unless this NTIS
service was brought under the FDLP officially, it would not fulfill
agency obligations, and GPO would have to continue to work
directly
with agencies to make information products available without
restriction through the FDLP.

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

Government Information Policy

How can the Federal Depository Library Program assist the
Government
in fulfilling its responsibility for informing its citizens in the new
electronic environment? How can basic public access to Government
information products be assured despite increasing requirements
that
agencies find new ways to raise revenues?

Depository Library Role in Access to Non-GPO Data

There is no current model for bringing electronic Government
information products available through agency electronic
information
services officially into the FDLP. Should there be? Should GPO
attempt to establish interagency agreements for inclusion of material
available from agency Internet sites in the FDLP? If so, what
limitations, restrictions or guarantees should be covered by these
agreements? What provisions should be made for permanent public
access to this type of information? Is the fact that the GPO Pathway
locator services direct users to an agency site enough to consider the
information at that site an "official" part of the FDLP? What is the
responsibility of depository libraries for providing assistance with
information at non-GPO sites, and for providing facilities for
downloading and printing?

Depository Library and GPO Role in Managing Limitations on Usage or
Redissemination

If GPO negotiates agreements with agencies which put limits on
redissemination of the their data, depository libraries will be put in
the position of enforcing copyright-like restrictions on Government
information products. They might be required to check for user
affiliation, or forbid downloading of data. Such restrictions are
used in libraries for commercial products, but have not been in place
for Government information products. Should Congress and GPO
cooperate in creating systems which place limits on the use of
Government information products? Is an expansion of access, even
with
limitations, reason enough to accept limitations which agencies need
in order to protect their revenue stream?

Permanent Public Access

How will the public be assured of access to Government information
products over periods of many years, if electronic information
services, such as agency Web sites, are purged of older materials?
How will electronic information products be maintained for
permanent
access? Although CD-ROM can provide access for a number of years,
it
is not considered a permanent medium and all data on CD-ROM will
need
to be migrated to new media for truly permanent access.

Attachment D-12

Task 9A: Case Study on Securities and Exchange Commission EDGAR
Data

Attachment D-12

TASK 9A: Evaluation of issues surrounding inclusion of the Securities
and
Exchange Commission (SEC) EDGAR System in the Federal Depository
Library
Program when that information is not already included in paper or
microfiche format.

BACKGROUND

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) administers federal
securities
laws. Issuers of securities making public offerings must file financial
and other pertinent data with the SEC. This information is available in
SEC public reading rooms and through private vendors. It also is
available
through the SEC's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis and Retrieval
System
(EDGAR) electronic filing system. According to the SEC, the primary
purpose of EDGAR is to "increase the efficiency and fairness of the
securities market for the benefit of investors, corporations, and the
economy by accelerating the receipt, acceptance, dissemination, and
analysis of time-sensitive corporate information filed with the agency."

EDGAR is used by nearly 75% of publicly traded domestic companies to
make
most of their filings. All public companies will be required to file
electronically with the SEC by May, 1996. The SEC receives
approximately
12 million documents a year, and estimates that users download nearly
17,000 documents a day.

In 1993, the Internet Multicasting Service and New York University
entered
into an agreement to test Internet as a vehicle for making this data
available to a broader public. That two-year experiment was funded by
the
National Science Foundation through a grant which expired on October
1,
1995.

In a speech on August 11, 1995, SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt announced
that
the SEC would provide access to EDGAR on its own World Wide Web
site.
Levitt said, "It is a major Commission priority to use electronic
communications to bring clearer, faster, more complete disclosure to
investors as well as to reduce costs for issuers. This represents a
logical step in our efforts to better inform investors....We've had many
creative offers from the private sector to keep EDGAR on the Internet...,
but all of them would in some way limit the amount of information
available, or else attach too many commercial strings. Taxpayers and
shareholders have already paid to compile this information--they
should not
have to pay again."

The SEC Web site provides access to all of the public electronic filings
made from 1994. It supports user access through Web Browser or
Anonymous
File Transfer Protocol (FTP). EDGAR access is provided free of charge
on a
day-delayed basis. Direct bulk feed of EDGAR data also can be
purchased
from Lexis/Nexis, which operates the EDGAR dissemination service.

The SEC intends to incorporate new technologies and concepts to
facilitate
the capture, analysis, and dissemination of the financial data the SEC is
required to obtain. To that end, a Technology Conference was held on
August 14, 1995, followed by a Request for Information (RFI) in
October.
The RFI sought information on the possible privatization of the EDGAR
system, in addition to a number of other policy and

technical issues. The RFI asked whether the agency should continue to
maintain and operate this service, "or should this service be provided by
the private sector either on the Internet or via some other means?"

On January 4, 1996, the SEC issued a second RFI concerning the EDGAR
system. This RFI supplements the first and specifically solicits
comments
on several potential EDGAR system architectures. Unlike the first RFI,
which proposed a possible privatization of the EDGAR service currently
provided through the SEC Web site, all four models presented in the
new RFI
assume that "the SEC will retain its Internet site and continue to offer
the current level of EDGAR document dissemination service."

FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY DISSEMINATION

Information filed with the SEC has never been part of the FDLP in
paper,
electronic or microfiche format. Although at one point SEC entered into
discussions with GPO about creating a CD-ROM version of their
documents,
which would have included FDLP distribution, no agreement was
reached.

DISSEMINATION ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A

EDGAR is maintained on the SEC Web site and the GPO Pathway
locator
services will direct users, including depository libraries, to the SEC Web
site for this information.

Benefits

- No new product development is needed.

- No costs are incurred by GPO or SEC for inclusion of this
information
product in the FDLP.

- The GPO Pathway locator services enhance public access to SEC
filings
by making them easier to find.

Disadvantages/Problems

- Depository libraries without Internet capabilities cannot access the
EDGAR database.

Alternative B

The SEC provides the electronic data to GPO for distribution to
depository
libraries on CD-ROM. Preliminary discussions with SEC about
CD-ROM
production assumed dissemination of approximately 10,000,000 pages
of
information per year. This includes Form Q, Form K,
mergers/acquisition,
and proxy statement filings. Over a one year period this would equate
to
the production of approximately 52 discs. The estimated cost to GPO
for
replication and distribution of these discs to 700 depository libraries
would be $182,000. Projected costs might be reduced by compressing
files
and/or by distributing discs less frequently. The SEC would be charged
for
premastering the discs unless the Federal Depository Library Program:
Information Dissemination and Access Strategic Plan, FY 1996 - FY
2001
(Strategic Plan) for

the FDLP is approved, in which case funds for premastering could be
taken
from the FDLP appropriation. The GPO Pathway locator services would
direct
users to the SEC Web site for more immediate access to filings.

Benefits

- Currently, depository libraries are better equipped to handle
CD-ROM
than Government electronic information services.

Disadvantages/Problems

- Additional cost to the FDLP of approximately $182,000 per year, or
more if GPO pays for premastering the discs. Since SEC filings
have
never been a part of the FDLP, their inclusion in the FDLP in
electronic format nets no cost savings for elimination of
comparable
paper or microfiche products from the program.

- Discs will not be as timely as access through the SEC Web site.
However, as access to the SEC Web site is free, depository libraries
still retain a mechanism for timely access of current SEC filings.

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

Permanent Archiving

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is
engaged in
negotiations with SEC to identify and schedule the records of
enduring
value in the EDGAR system. NARA has expressed concern about
long-term
access to files if the database is privatized, and would prefer in
that case to acquire the data directly on magnetic tape cartridge.
Any EDGAR data transferred to NARA will not be maintained for use
through an electronic information service and will not be accessible
via the Internet on a continuing basis. However, a specific request
will trigger access to the EDGAR data.

Permanent Access

The SEC has not indicated how long filings will remain actively
available on their Web site. If filings are "retired" after a few
years, access to earlier information would be available only in SEC
reading rooms or through private vendors, unless provision is made
for
CD-ROM backup or "mirror" sites.

Methods for Bringing Electronic Information Products Officially Into
the
FDLP

There is no current model for bringing information products
available
through remote access to Government electronic information
services
sites officially into the FDLP. Should there be? Should GPO attempt
to establish interagency agreements for inclusion of material
available from agency Web sites in the FDLP? If so, what
limitations,
restrictions or guarantees should be covered by these agreements?
What provisions should be made for permanent access to this type of
information? Is the fact that the GPO Pathway locator services
direct
users to an agency site enough to consider the information at that
site an "official" part of the FDLP? What is the responsibility of
depository libraries for providing assistance with information at
non-GPO sites?

Attachment D-13

Task 9B: Case Study on Federal District and Circuit Court Opinions

Attachment D-13

TASK 9B: Evaluatation of how United States Court of Appeals'
published slip
opinions might be included in the Federal Depository Library Program
(FDLP)
electronically, although traditionally they have not been a part of the
FDLP in either paper or microfiche format.

INTRODUCTION

The United States Courts of Appeals traditionally has published their
own
slip opinions in paper form and has a long standing waiver from the
requirement to use the services of the Government Printing Office
(GPO) to
produce printed materials. The opinions are distributed to the parties,
members of the court community, law libraries, and are available to the
public through various sources. As technology progressed, the courts
took
advantage of the improved efficiencies and began electronically
transmitting opinions to interested legal publishers and the public,
created court-operated electronic bulletin board systems for further
public
distribution to the bar and the public, and made slip opinions available
on
the Internet for yet further distribution.

The following paper presents a review of existing electronic methods for
dissemination of Government information and discusses, in particular,
alternatives the courts might consider for disseminating appellate court
opinions. The paper addresses: (1) the background for the
long-standing
practice of producing slip opinions using local printing contractors, (2)
the Judiciary's relationship with the Federal Depository Library
Program,
(3) the alternatives for distributing slip opinions electronically, and (4)
the issues posed by electronic distribution. The paper does not offer
any
recommendations. Any change to current practices would need to be
considered by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the courts,
and the Judicial Conference of the United States.

BACKGROUND

Production of slip opinions for the federal courts of appeals is handled
locally by the individual courts of appeals. There is no centralized
administrative control over the slip opinion process, beyond the
assistance
provided by the Administrative Office (AO) for procuring a printing
contractor. All policy regarding production and distribution is made by
each appellate court. Slip opinions typically are produced and
distributed
to the court, and to both paid and free subscribers, by contract vendors.

Wide access to the federal appellate opinions is available in both hard
print and electronic formats. Historically, the courts have provided
hard
print copies of slip opinions to interested law schools within their
circuit, often in exchange for free subscriptions to those law schools'
journals. Other non-profit organizations, including government
organizations, usually receive free subscriptions to the published
opinions. Copies of the opinions also are provided to the press. In
addition, opinions always have been available to the public through
paid
subscriptions and in the circuit libraries.

In addition to access to print copies, electronic access to appellate
opinions is available through a variety of sources. The electronic legal
research options are available from numerous commercial vendors and
all
twelve circuits provide public access to their recent published opinions
through their own electronic bulletin board systems (BBS) or the
Internet.
The systems operate on toll-free telephone lines and opinions are
provided
primarily in ASCII or WordPerfect format, to allow the broadest access
for
users. There is no full text search capability on the bulletin boards.
The bulletin boards provide general court information and an index of
cases
to assist users in their searches as well as the text of the opinions.
Typically, users do not read the cases while on-line on the BBS, but
download them to their computers to reduce on-line access costs as well
as
to improve readability. Experience has shown that most legal
researchers
continue to prefer to read lengthy text, such as court opinions, from
printed copies, as opposed to reading from a computer screen.

Each circuit has established local rules governing access to, and
availability of, these electronic bulletin boards. The policy of the
Judicial Conference of the United States is to authorize the collection of
a fee for electronic access to court information, consistent with a
mandate
from Congress. The current PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic
Records) fee is $0.60 per minute. The fee was authorized by the
Congress
to reimburse the Judiciary for costs incurred in providing electronic
public access services. The fee is based on costs for development,
implementation and enhancement of electronic public access services.
The
Judicial Conference further authorized that exemptions from the fee
may be
granted by a court, in order to avoid unreasonable burdens and to
promote
public access to information. The exemption is intended to
accommodate
those users who might otherwise not have access to the information
product
in electronic form. Examples of persons and classes of persons who
may be
exempted from these fees include indigents and not-for-profit
organizations.

The Judiciary has no plans at this time to initiate an internal process to
collect opinions and post them on the Judiciary's own World Wide Web
site,
which is still in its infancy. However, there have been several
developments recently in providing Internet access to the opinions.
One
circuit is using a third-party Internet host to upload its opinions to the
Internet. There also is a commercial vendor who has added all
appellate
published opinions to its Web Site, purchasing opinions from the
courts
when necessary and then posting them to the site for free public use.

In addition, a consortium of law schools, generally one from each
circuit,
provides free access to appellate opinions through each school's Web
Site.
Circuits were approached individually by the law schools about
participating in this effort. Opinions from all circuits are available
through the law school Web sites. The member law schools have
complete
responsibility for retrieving the opinions, processing them as they
determine necessary and uploading them to the Internet.

DISSEMINATION TO FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES

The Judiciary has a longstanding waiver from the requirement to utilize
the
Government Printing Office's (GPO) printing resources. An indefinite
waiver was renewed by the Joint Committee on Printing in 1985, which
requires that the Judiciary participate in the FDLP by providing copies
of
opinions to all requesting depository libraries. The Judiciary has
worked
with GPO to implement this distribution process; however, to date, no
agreement has been reached on the most efficient and effective means to
distribute the thousands of opinions published by the courts of appeals
each year.

In 1994, discussions began in order to determine how opinions could be
distributed to the FDLP electronically, especially since the federal
appellate courts had been widely circulating their opinions
electronically
for some time. The Judiciary recognized the efficiency in handling the
large volume of slip opinions in this manner. However, this project has
been delayed in recognition of GPO efforts in establishing its Web site,
the Judiciary's progress in establishing an electronic bulletin board in
each circuit, and now, the current FDLP Study.

ALTERNATIVES FOR DISSEMINATING OPINIONS TO FEDERAL
DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES

Alternative A

The Judiciary could provide electronic versions of the slip opinions to
GPO, which would in turn add them to GPO Access as full-text
searchable
databases. GPO requires the collection of opinions from all circuits.
Due
to the decentralized nature of the Judiciary, it may be necessary to
establish a focal point for this effort in order to ensure consistent
compliance with GPO needs. Therefore, this alternative may require
that
the Administrative Office collect the opinions and send them to GPO.
In
this event, the AO would need to establish a reimbursable agreement
with
GPO to pay the costs of routine collection, preparation, conversion, and
storage of the electronic data.

Benefits

- The printing waiver granted to the Judiciary is continued.

- Public access is improved, a goal the Judiciary has pursued actively
and successfully in recent years.

- Creation of a full-text searchable database enhances the usefulness
of opinions to researchers and provides a single source for the
information, thus assuring a uniform interface and file formats.

- Permanent public access to the opinions is assured by GPO and the
FDLP.

Disadvantages/Problems

- Collecting opinions from the courts and providing them to GPO will
require increased AO staff resources to develop the applications for
opinion collection and dissemination and to monitor the daily
collection of opinions. This will mean increased costs for the AO,
which would likely have to acquire funding for this purpose.

- Increased costs would be incurred by the Judiciary for the data
formatting and storage done by GPO. Acquiring additional funding
for this purpose would not be required if the Federal Depository
Library Program: Information Dissemination and Access Strategic
Plan, FY 1996 - FY 2001 (Strategic Plan) for the FDLP is approved,
in which case funds for conversion and storage could be paid for by
the FDLP appropriation.

Alternative B

The Judiciary could provide electronic versions of the slip opinions to
GPO, which would in turn add them to the Federal Bulletin Board for
free
public access through the FDLP.

Benefits

- The printing waiver granted to the Judiciary is continued.

- Public access to opinions is improved by providing one central
location for all appellate court opinions.

- Permanent public access to the opinions is assured by GPO and the
FDLP.

- No additional conversion or storage costs would be incurred by the
Judiciary.

Disadvantages/Problems

- Opinions would be available only as ASCII or WordPerfect files
making
them less useful than a full-text searchable database.

Alternative C

The Judiciary's existing BBS services are being used broadly and have
received general acceptance. These BBS services could be made the
center
of the FDLP electronic access arrangement, by offering the depository
libraries free access to the opinions on each circuit's BBS. It is not
clear how this would be implemented technologically. The GPO
Pathway
locator services could direct users to the appellate courts' BBS for slip
opinions. It is possible that end users would have to access opinions
indirectly by first going through the FDLP program, adding some steps
to
the research process.

Benefits

- The printing waiver granted to the Judiciary is continued.

- Public access to opinions is improved.

- There is no need to establish a centralized collection method,
therefore no additional costs are incurred by the AO.

- Each circuit maintains control over its own opinions.

- Although this alternative is likely to increase costs to the
Judiciary, e.g., for enhancing the BBS, implementing new password
maintenance, adding phone lines, and increasing hardware costs
for
larger computers for the BBS, these costs might be offset by the
PACER fee account.

Disadvantages/Problems

- With multiple sources for the opinions, it is more time-consuming
for
users to access the opinions they need.

- Opinions would be in ASCII and WordPerfect format; therefore, text
searching would not be available.

- Depository libraries would have to register and become familiar
with
multiple bulletin board systems, with no standard interface and
various file formats.

- Accessibility is determined by each circuit and permanent access
cannot be guaranteed.

Alternative D

The Judiciary could support its own Web site to collect and store
opinions.
The opinions would be full text searchable. The GPO Pathway locator
services would direct users to the Judiciary Web site for appellate court
opinions.

Benefits

- Public access to opinions is broadened and improved.

- The printing waiver granted to the Judiciary is continued.

- Security and control of the information would be controlled by the
Judiciary.

- The visibility and image of the Courts of Appeals and the Judiciary
is improved.

- Costs for maintaining opinions on the Web site would be offset in
part by other applications the site would provide.

- As a full-text searchable database, opinions are more useful to
researchers.

Disadvantages/Problems

- As with Alternative A, costs would be incurred by the Judiciary to
collect and format the opinions for dissemination. There also
would
be on-going costs associated with maintenance and permanent
access
to the opinions. Thus, costs to the Judiciary would increase.

Alternative E

The law school consortium project is the leading effort to consolidate
the
slip opinions on the Internet. The Judiciary could endorse the law
school
consortium project and create a partnership between the consortium,
the
Judiciary (most likely, through the AO), and GPO. Rather than the
Judiciary or GPO maintaining the data, the consortium would provide
access
to the opinions. The GPO Pathway locator

services would refer users to law school Web sites. Currently, the
consortium schools retrieve opinions from their local circuit BBS and, if
opinions are needed from another circuit, the user is transparently
directed to the other law school Web site with the requested opinions.

Benefits

- The printing waiver granted to the Judiciary is continued.

- Public access to opinions is improved.

- There is no increase in the resources needed by the Judiciary.

- This information service will be maintained by the law schools.

Disadvantages/Problems

- The Judiciary and FDLP are dependent on the law schools to
maintain
access to the opinions. Moreover, there is no guarantee that
opinions will be available for permanent access. Arrangements
concerning these issues would have to be made with the
participating
law schools before GPO could endorse the project.

- Each of the law schools determine how they wish to format the
opinions. Currently, there is no national standard for format or
appearance.

- Information is located at several sites, and the user must know
which
law school Web site to search in order to locate an opinion. The
GPO Pathway locator services could help solve this problem.

- Some sites are copyrighting the formatting of the opinions, thus
restricting use and re-use of the information. This restriction
would have to be removed by the participating law schools before
GPO
could endorse the project.

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

In reviewing alternative methods for electronically disseminating slip
opinions to the FDLP, a list of issues has been developed. Some of these
issues were raised during the development of the bulletin boards and
were
resolved according to the needs and priorities of the circuits. Should
the
federal courts change individual or collective practices, these issues will
need to be revisited.

Permanent Access and Preservation

For what duration are opinions maintained on-line? How is
permanent
access for the FDLP assured? How is preservation by NARA to be
accomplished? Should a preservation process be developed? Is there
demand for an alternative, near-line access method, such as
CD-ROM?
Would that be considered sufficient for permanent access?

Requirements for Electronic Access

Should information products available electronically from the
Judiciary be provided in a format to assist users in conducting legal
research, or is this primarily a means of disseminating information
products without affecting the form and utility of the information
they provide?

Legal research requires software with full text search capability and
requires access to historical records, both of which add significant
costs to making opinions available electronically.

Need and Demand for an Alternate Method of Dissemination

With the current variety of judiciary, non-profit, and commercial
sources for slip opinions, is it necessary to develop another
alternative method of dissemination through GPO or the Judiciary?

Is there a market demand that is not being met by the various public
dissemination methods currently available? If so, do the costs of
establishing an additional alternative method of dissemination
outweigh the need demonstrated?

Ensuring the Integrity of Data

What controls exist in any electronic system to ensure the integrity
of data?

Is there a need to have "true" or "certified" electronic versions of
slip opinions? Since each circuit formats its decision uniquely, in
order to provide an accurate and exact copy, it would be necessary to
use Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) files.

Costs for Dual Format Distribution

The Judiciary will continue to have a demand for paper copies of
decisions by judges, parties, law schools, private practitioners, and
others who now subscribe to the courts. Thus, for the foreseeable
future, it will be necessary to maintain both print and electronic
distribution of court opinions. Therefore, enhanced electronic
dissemination will not reduce costs, but will be an additional cost.

Attachment D-14

Task 10A: Case Study on STAT-USA Services

Attachment D-14

TASK 10A: Review of the effects of offering free public access to
STAT-USA
information products and services through the Federal Depository
Library
Program (FDLP).

BACKGROUND

STAT-USA is a self-funding organization within the Department of
Commerce.
Its mission is to produce and distribute, and to assist other
Government
agencies in producing and distributing, world class business, economic,
and
Government information products that American businesses and the
public can
use to make intelligent and informed decisions. Services are provided
through a variety of electronic media including dial-up bulletin board,
CD-ROM, diskette, and the Internet.

Economic Bulletin Board

More than a decade ago, STAT-USA's predecessor organization, the
Office of
Business Analysis (OBA), started the Economic Bulletin Board (EBB).
The
EBB was designed to deliver, in electronic format, current economic and
business information products to the public as soon as they were made
available. It was also designed as a one-stop source for economic news,
so
that customers would not need to go to dozens of different agencies
looking
for indicators of the state of the U.S. economy. OBA began charging for
access to its electronic information services in 1986 at the direction of
then Under Secretary of Commerce Bud Brown. Since the EBB was a
valuable
business tool, it was believed that the business community should help
defray the costs associated with its operation. Early EBB fee structures
were designed to provide reasonable payments from large scale
customers and
provide access to one-time or infrequent users at very low prices.

National Trade Data Bank

In 1989, OBA was assigned to plan and implement the National Trade
Data
Bank (NTDB) which was mandated by the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act
of 1988. The Act called for the Department of Commerce to lead an
effort
to bring together Government information related to international
trade and
export promotion and to make this available to the U.S. public in a
low-cost, electronic form. OBA selected CD-ROM as the most
cost-effective
technology to distribute what was anticipated to be a large collection of
information from a variety of agencies. The concept of user fees was
supported in the language that created the NTDB which allowed
Commerce to
charge "reasonable fees" for NTDB access. Moreover, since
appropriations
to fund the NTDB never adequately covered the actual costs of
developing
and operating the data bank, OBA became reliant on customer fees to
partially defray costs of keeping the NTDB open.

This perilous financial situation was recognized by Vice President
Gore's
first National Performance Review (NPR) in 1994 which recommended
that the
National Trade Data Bank be placed on a firm financial footing. This,
and
other NPR recommendations led to three outcomes:

- STAT-USA was established in October 1994 with the explicit
mission to
develop electronic business, economic, and trade information
services.

- A revolving fund was established with a one-time appropriation of
$1.67 million to set up STAT-USA operations and provide a
financial
safety net until it could operate on a cost recovery basis.

- Provisions of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988
pertaining to the price of the NTDB were amended to authorize
STAT-USA to recover the full cost of operating the NTDB.

STAT-USA/Internet

STAT-USA/Internet contains many of the same types of information
found on
the NTDB CD-ROM, the EBB, and the National Economic, Social, and
Environmental Data Bank (now discontinued). However, having these
information products available in one Internet location has proven to
be
more timely and useful to many libraries. Moreover, STAT-USA makes
use of
current information searching tools which provide more accurate
search
results than similar searches conducted on the CD-ROM.

FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY DISTRIBUTION

STAT-USA has enjoyed a long and steady relationship with the
depository
library community. Many librarians have convinced STAT-USA of the
value of
serving the U.S. public through the FDLP.

An official relationship with the FDLP began in 1989 when the EBB was
included as one of the five original pilot projects to determine the
feasibility of FDLP access to Government electronic information
services.
One hundred libraries were provided access to the EBB from June 1,
1990 -
December 30, 1990. GPO reimbursed OBA $15,000 for access by the
100
participating libraries during the trial period. The results of the pilot
project were mixed; a relatively small number of depository libraries
actually took advantage of the service.

CD-ROM use by the business community was in its infancy during the
late
1980's and early 1990's. Consequently in its implementation plans for
the
NTDB in 1990, OBA specifically planned for free distribution of the
CD-ROM
through the FDLP to meet the Congressional intent for this information
to
be widely disseminated. Potential users of this information product
would
not be required to own CD-ROM hardware and software, but could
access the
NTDB at the nearest depository library holding the CD-ROM in its
collection.

When the NTDB CD-ROM was first issued in October 1990, more than
600
depository libraries elected to receive it. During the ensuing five years,
the NTDB has become one of the most widely used CD-ROM titles in
the FDLP.
As of March, 1996, 1,070 depository libraries receive the monthly set of
NTDB discs. Many depository libraries have indicated they
permanently
mount the NTDB due to its constant demand by library patrons. The
size of
the NTDB has grown considerably since the first issue which contained
roughly 40,000 documents. Today, it contains nearly 250,000
documents and
requires two separate discs to deliver the entire collection each month.

STAT-USA continued its open relationship with depository libraries in
1994
when it established STAT-USA/Internet. Starting that Fall, depository
libraries were given single-user free access to this Internet-based
electronic information service.

STAT-USA initially intended to accept depository applications directly
for STAT-USA/Internet. However, library demand for this service
quickly
exceeded the ability of Commerce staff to create new accounts, maintain
records on STAT-USA internal computer systems, and provide applying
depository libraries with timely notification of the activation of their
account. Part of the registration pressure was eased in 1995 when the
GPO
Library Programs Service (LPS) staff agreed to take over many of the
administrative duties associated with signing up libraries to access the
service. Currently, 521 depository libraries access STAT-USA/Internet.

DISSEMINATION ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A

STAT-USA will continue to offer STAT-USA/Internet to the FDLP with
the
costs recovered from other STAT-USA fees.

Benefits

- STAT-USA relies on depository libraries as advertising vehicles for
its services. Many current STAT-USA customers were first
introduced
to the NTDB or STAT-USA/Internet through use of these services in
a
library. Many library patrons eventually want their own
subscription to use in their home or office. Depository libraries
provide very low cost exposure to STAT-USA products and assist us
in
marketing our services.

- STAT-USA routinely refers large numbers of customers to
depository
libraries to access its services. There are still many information
customers who do not possess the computer technology to access
STAT-USA information products, do not want to pay for the
services
or cannot afford them, or want to try out the service before they
buy. STAT-USA refers these customers to the FDLP community and
views depository libraries as a public safety net to ensure public
access to these information products.

Disadvantages/Problems

- STAT-USA began its relationship with the FDLP during a period
when
appropriated funds supported free distribution of STAT-USA discs
and
the provision of other electronic information services to depository
libraries. Substantial sums were expended by STAT-USA to provide
depository copies of the NTDB CD-ROM, train librarians in their
use,
and provide free customer support. Although STAT-USA
management
remains committed to the FDLP, lack of appropriated funds now
makes
it much more difficult for STAT-USA to participate in the FDLP.

- Depository libraries have requested more than a single user
subscription to STAT-USA/Internet and objected to the requirement
that they not offer access to STAT-USA/Internet over their networks
unless they can restrict access to a single simultaneous user.

- Libraries want to ensure the broadest public access to the
information products available through STAT-USA at no cost to
patrons. Since Government information cannot be copyrighted,
libraries can freely disseminate electronic Government information
products as broadly as they chose (and their resources permit), thus
undermining the ability of STAT-USA to exist as a self-funding
agency. This problem exists even when the depository libraries (or
others) purchase access to STAT-USA themselves; it is not
exclusively a problem of FDLP access.

- Increased costs to the FDLP for purchasing depository access to the
service.

Alternative B

GPO would purchase access to STAT-USA/Internet for the depository
libraries. Based on the published prices for STAT-USA/Internet access,
the
current level of access (single simultaneous user) for the 521 libraries
currently selecting STAT-USA/Internet would cost $130,250 per year.
For
$208,400 GPO could purchase "Class C" access for 521 libraries; that
would
permit access to all users within a single Class C IP Address in each
library. For $416,800 GPO could purchase access for 6 to 10
simultaneous
users for each of the 521 libraries. (This is comparable to the original
number of GPO Access subscriptions provided to each depository
library.)

Benefits

- STAT-USA continues to rely on depository libraries as advertising
vehicles for its services.

- STAT-USA continues to refer a large number of customers to
depository
libraries to access its services and retains depository libraries as
a public safety net to ensure public access to their information
products.

- Depository libraries could increase the number of simultaneous
users
with access to STAT-USA/Internet if GPO elected to purchase Class
C
service or service for 6 to 10 simultaneous users.

Disadvantages/Problems

- Libraries want to ensure the broadest public access to the
information products available through STAT-USA at no cost to
patrons. Since U.S. Government information cannot be
copyrighted,
libraries can freely disseminate electronic Government information
products as broadly as they so choose (and their resources permit),
thus undermining the ability of STAT-USA to exist as a self-funding
agency. Although the payment by GPO of fees for access by
depository libraries would compensate STAT-USA for the costs of
providing FDLP access, it would not eliminate the problem created
by
libraries offering remote access or re-disseminating the information
from STAT-USA. This problem is not unique to the FDLP; it exists
even when the depository libraries (or others) purchase access to
STAT-USA services.

- GPO incurs additional costs associated with purchasing access for
depository libraries.

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

Funding for Depository Copies

STAT-USA drastically reduced its costs for providing discs to the
depository libraries by switching CD-ROM production from the
National
Technical Information Service (NTIS) to GPO. STAT-USA estimates
it
cost nearly $75,000 per year to supply FDLP copies of CD-ROM titles
produced through non-GPO replication contracts. These funds are
paid
by GPO now that the NTDB is produced through a GPO CD-ROM
replication
contract.

Costs for FDLP access to STAT-USA/Internet currently are covered by
STAT-USA. GPO could purchase access for the depository libraries,
either using STAT-USA's published rates or by negotiating a special
rate for depository libraries.

Training

STAT-USA has reduced its training activities for depository
librarians
from prior years. STAT-USA conducted over 30 specialized library
training programs throughout the country during the first two years
the NTDB was operating. We receive continuing requests for
additional
training classes today. However, it is much more difficult to offer
these training classes; they generally can be considered only for
large gatherings such as the annual Depository Library Conference,
when STAT-USA staff are traveling for commercial conferences, or
when
traveling costs are defrayed by library organizations. For example,
virtually no training has been provided for depository library access
to STAT-USA/Internet. Moreover, a new generation NTDB CD-ROM
software
will be released in 1996. It is unlikely significant training
activities can be held for this new format. This increases the burden
on depository librarians to create their own documentation, become
self-taught, or rely on other avenues to ensure they can use these
services. STAT-USA could afford to provide additional training if
GPO
purchased its services on behalf of the FDLP. Alternatively, GPO
could negotiate to "purchase" additional training services from
STAT-USA if STAT-USA continues to offer free FDLP access.

Fee vs. Free

The final, and most important, issue facing fee-based agencies is the
conflict between the federal statutes that seek to assure free public
access through the FDLP while also requiring fee-based agencies to
recover not just the costs of dissemination, but also their
development costs. Libraries want to ensure the broadest public
access to Government information products at no cost to patrons.
By
contrast, fee-based agencies must charge fees to support the creation,
organization, and dissemination of their electronic information
services, without the protection of copyright or copyright-like
restrictions on their use.

The fee versus free issue was a relatively minor issue when library
patrons literally walked through a door and used a paper document
such
as a book or pamphlet. Today's electronic information technology,
however, makes this a much more serious issue. Library patrons no
longer need to be in the physical library. Instead, they can use
library holdings from across the

street or around the world. Since U.S. Government information
cannot
be copyrighted, depository libraries can freely disseminate
Government
information products as broadly as they so choose (and their
resources
permit).

These library-based dissemination activities make sense from the
library's perspective. It is far easier for educational institutions
to create networked collections of information accessible from
student
dorm rooms or faculty offices than to provide walk-in access to a
limited number of computer workstations located in the library.
Similarly, a public library may wish to serve all its branches, or
offer remote access to its patrons from their homes or offices.

Many examples exist where libraries have subscribed to STAT-USA
electronic information services, or received them free of charge as
depository libraries, and then redistributed the information via free
electronic information services. Significant portions of the National
Trade Data Bank and virtually all the files found on the Economic
Bulletin Board are "repackaged" by one or more libraries and
distributed for free. For example, the University of Michigan
operates a virtual mirror site of the EBB; they download EBB files
every day, post them on the University of Michigan gopher service
and
make them available to two constituent groups -- students and
faculty
at the University of Michigan and other depository libraries.
Unfortunately, through their efforts EBB files also are distributed to
the rest of the world at no charge. There is so much confusion on
this issue that large information vendors such as America Online
even
refer their customers to the "Economic Bulletin Board at the
University of Michigan."

However, the same library dissemination activities place fee-based
electronic information services like STAT-USA in financial vises. It
is much more difficult for fee-based agencies to organize and operate
their electronic information collection activities when the public is
increasingly reluctant to pay for data freely available from other
sources. This creates a lose-lose situation for the fee-based agency
and the depository libraries. The agencies cut back operations
because they do not have sufficient revenue to operate their services
and the libraries (and other users) receive poor quality service
and/or smaller amounts of information. Ultimately, the downward
spiral in potential revenues creates strong incentives for fee-based
agencies to withhold information products from the depository
library
system altogether and to impose severe restrictions of its use,
whether by subscribers or those receiving it through the FDLP. The
latter action violates the policy articulated in OMB Circular A-130
that agencies should not impose copyright-like restrictions on
Government electronic information services.

Attachment D-15

Task 10B: Case Study on the National Library of Medicine MEDLINE
Service

Attachment D-15

TASK 10B: Evaluation of alternatives for including the National Library
of
Medicine (NLM) MEDLINE data, available as an electronic fee-based
service,
in the FDLP.

BACKGROUND

MEDLARS is a computerized system of databases and data banks
targeted to
health professionals and medical libraries. It is operated by the
National
Library of Medicine (NLM). Users may search MEDLARS computer files
to
produce a list of publications (bibliographic citations) or to retrieve
factual information on a specific question. Users of MEDLARS include
universities, medical schools, hospitals, Government agencies,
commercial
and nonprofit organizations, and private individuals. MEDLARS
comprises
two computer subsystems, ELHILL and TOXNET, on which reside over
40 online
databases containing about 16 million references. ELHILL databases
provide
access to information on a wide range of subjects relating to
biomedicine.
TOXNET (TOXicology data NETwork) is a computerized collection of
files on
toxicology, hazardous chemicals and related areas.

MEDLINE (MEDlars onLINE), part of ELHILL, is NLM's premier
bibliographic
database covering the fields of medicine, nursing, dentistry, veterinary
medicine, and preclinical sciences. Journal articles are indexed for
MEDLINE, and their citations are searchable, using NLM's controlled
vocabulary, MeSH (Medical Subject Headings). MEDLINE contains all
citations published in Index Medicus, and also corresponds in part to
the
International Nursing Index and the Index to Dental Literature.
MEDLINE
contains about 7.2 million records with about 31,000 new citations
added to
the database each month. It indexes articles from more than 3,800
international biomedical journals dating from 1966 to the present.

NLM is authorized by law (P.L. 89-941) and by regulation (42 CFR
Chap. 1,
4.7) to charge fees to users of its specialized bibliographic services,
including its electronic information service, or its information retrieval
system computer tapes. There are several different rate structures for
the
MEDLARS databases. The one most applicable to the FDLP is a
fixed-fee
rate, available for organizations with many potential searchers. One
fixed-fee, one registration, and one ID is established between NLM and
the
parent organization. The negotiated fixed-fee is based on NLM
formulas
about anticipated use patterns, and other costs.

NLM currently is offering free access to four MEDLARS databases: three
online AIDS databases, as well as DIRLINE, an online directory of
health
and biomedical resources of all types, primarily in the United States.
NLM
still requires a registration process for use of these free databases.

NLM has an expanding World Wide Web site. However, the head of the
NLM
Office of Public Information indicated that the NLM Web site is
"mature"
and would not expand to include more free information products. He
said
NLM has already identified the databases that it wants to offer free on
the
Web. One of these, an Aids Bibliography, currently is issued to
depository
libraries in paper. The others have no print or microfiche counterpart
in
the FDLP.

FEDERAL DEPOSITORY DISTRIBUTION

There are several publications either currently or formerly delivered to
depository libraries in print format which have content included in
MEDLARS. For example, MEDLINE includes the citations that are in
the print
Index Medicus, a very costly depository print title. The MEDLINE
database
also contains information in addition to what appears in the print
Index
Medicus, including corrections to the information in the printed
edition.

The following titles have been discontinued in print format, but the
content is available at no cost via the Internet. The result is a cost
savings to the FDLP, as shown below:

NLM Titles No Longer Available Annual GPO Cost Savings**
Frequency Media
to the FDLP in Print Format

National Library of Medicine $757.89 Quarterly
Microfiche
Current Catalog (500 copies = $1.52 each)
(last issued 1993)

National Library of Medicine $7,551.64 Quarterly Paper
Audio Visual Catalog (461 copies = $16.38 each)
(last issued 1993)

Total Annual GPO Savings $8,309.53

** Based on GPO printing and binding costs x number of selecting
depository libraries, claims copies, and postage

The Aids Bibliography continues in the FDLP in paper format, but the
content also is available at no cost via the Internet. If FDLP
distribution of the Aids Bibliography were discontinued there would be
a
cost savings to the FDLP, as shown below:

NLM Titles Still in the FDLP with Potential Annual GPO Frequency
Media
Content Available via Internet Cost Savings**

AIDS Bibliography $24,781 Monthly Paper
(782 copies = $2.64 each)

Total Annual GPO Savings $24,781

** Based on GPO printing and binding costs x number of selecting
depository libraries, claims copies, and postage

On October 5, 1995, members of the Task 10 team and the Director of
Library
Programs Service, met with top NLM officials to ascertain if GPO might
establish an agreement with NLM to provide free access to NLM
fee-based
electronic information services for depository libraries. A number of
issues were discussed, but most importantly for this task, NLM
explained it
was not in a position to provide free public access to all depository
libraries.

However, NLM suggested that the team consider a pilot project
involving a
limited number of depository libraries. Internet Grateful Med was
suggested as a potential test application, following which NLM could
examine the issue of pricing. Data collected in the context of such a test
could possibly result in the establishment of fixed-fee access for
depository libraries.

DISSEMINATION ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A

Simultaneously drop traditional format NLM publications from the
FDLP while
substituting access to NLM's fee-based MEDLARS system for depository
libraries. GPO would purchase access to MEDLARS for depository
libraries
at a fixed-fee rate which would allow for unlimited searching for all
depository libraries, or a fixed amount or ceiling on use could be
arranged
based on anticipated use patterns and other negotiable factors. Part or
all of the cost for the depository library access to MEDLARS could be
met
by immediately eliminating paper format distribution of some costly
titles
from the FDLP.

Major NLM Titles in the FDLP and Also in NLM's Fee-based Online
MEDLARS
Service

Current Major NLM Titles Total Annual Cost**

Abridged Index Medicus
(monthly - paper) $16,477.02 (607 copies = $27.15 each)

Index Medicus
(14 issues per year - paper) $133,824.33 (730 copies = $183.32 each)

Cumulated Index Medicus $187,938.50 (730 copies = $257.45
each)

Total Annual Savings $338,239.85

** Based on GPO printing & binding costs x number of selecting
depository libraries + claims copies, and postage.

Benefits

- This approach yields the maximum cost savings to GPO.

- MEDLARS is more timely than its print counterparts.

- NLM ensures that the historical information available through its
electronic information service is continually edited and updated.
This prevents use of outdated or incorrect information that remains
in the paper copies.

- MEDLARS contains additional information that is not distributed
through the FDLP.

- Any additional costs to NLM for depository library access are offset
by the fee paid by GPO.

Disadvantages/Problems

- Public access at or through depository libraries could impact NLM's
revenue from its electronic information services, even though GPO
is
paying NLM a fee for that access.

- To use the service effectively, depository libraries and users will
need training that is not required to use the print products.

Alternative B

Use a phased-in approach where traditional formats and electronic
information service options will be offered as choices in the FDLP, with
the elimination of the paper format to occur at a preannounced date. If
the Federal Depository Library Program: Information Dissemination
and
Access Strategic Plan, FY 1996 - FY 2001 (Strategic Plan) for the FDLP is
approved, the phased-in approach would have to be concluded by the
end of
FY 1998 since the plan eliminates all dual distribution to depository
libraries.

Benefits

- This "parallel" approach will make the transition easier on the
libraries.

- MEDLARS is more timely than its print counterparts.

- NLM ensures that the historical information available through its
electronic information service is continually edited and updated.

- MEDLARS contains additional information that is not distributed
through the FDLP.

- Additional costs to NLM for depository access are offset by fees paid
by GPO.

Disadvantages/Problems

- It may be difficult to achieve short-term cost savings sufficient to
offset the fees for access with a transitional approach.

- Public access at or through depository libraries could impact NLM's
revenue from its electronic information services, even though GPO
is
paying NLM a fee for that access.

- To use the service effectively, depository libraries and users will
need training that is not required to use the print products.

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

Impact of FDLP Inclusion on Agencies' Fee-Based Services

The statutory and regulatory basis for NLM's information
dissemination
may operate at cross purposes to the public information goals of the
FDLP. NLM is concerned that no-fee access via depository libraries
would undercut their market. Fee-based information programs,
where
the agency must charge users in order to recover costs, are a barrier
to participation in the FDLP.

Mission of a Publishing Agency to Disseminate Its Information

Dissemination of information products to the general public through
the FDLP is not viewed as a part of, or consistent with, the agency's
information delivery mission to its primary customers. Although
NLM
has been willing to have its print publications available through the
FDLP, it does not recognize a comparable obligation for electronic
information products. A clarification of law may be necessary to
make
it clear to agencies that laws directing agency information
dissemination do not, unless specifically stated, eliminate the
responsibility for participation in the FDLP.

Attachment E:

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS)
Principles of Public Information

Attachment E

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
Principles of Public Information

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access, Volume 60, Number
111
(June 9, 1995), Page 30609

Principles of Public Information

Preamble

From the birth of our nation, open and uninhibited access to public
information has ensured good government and a free society. Public
information helps to educate our people, stimulate our progress and
solve
our most complex economic, scientific and social problems. With the
coming
of the Information Age and its many new technologies, however, public
information has expanded so quickly that basic principles regarding its
creation, use and dissemination are in danger of being neglected and
even
forgotten. The National Commission on Libraries and Information
Science,
therefore, reaffirms that the information policies of the U.S.
government
are based on the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, and on the
recognition of public information as a national resource to be
developed
and preserved in the public interest. We define public information as
information created, compiled and/or maintained by the Federal
Government.
We assert that public information is information owned by the people,
held
in trust by their government, and should be available to the people
except
where restricted by law. It is in this spirit of public ownership and
public trust that we offer the following Principles of Public
Information.

Principles

1. The Public Has the Right of Access to Public Information

Government agencies should guarantee open, timely and uninhibited
access to public information except where restricted by law. People
should be able to access public information, regardless of its format,
without any special training or expertise.

2. The Federal Government Should Guarantee the Integrity and
Preservation
of Public Information, Regardless of its Format

By maintaining public information in the face of changing times and
technologies, government agencies assure the government's
accountability and the accessibility of the government's business to
the public.

3. The Federal Government Should Guarantee the Dissemination,
Reproduction, and Redistribution of Public Information

Any restriction of dissemination or any other function dealing with
public information must be strictly defined by law.

4. The Federal Government Should Safeguard the Privacy of Persons
Who Use
or Request Information, as Well as Persons About Whom Information
Exists in
Government Records

5. The Federal Government Should Ensure a Wide Diversity of Sources
of
Access, Private as Well as Governmental, to Public Information

Although sources of access may change over time and because of
advances in technology, government agencies have an obligation to
the
public to encourage diversity.

6. The Federal Government Should Not Allow Cost to Obstruct the
People's
Access to Public Information

Costs incurred by creating, collecting and processing information for
the government's own purposes should not be passed on to people
who
wish to utilize public information.

7. The Federal Government Should Ensure that Information About
Government
Information is Easily Available and in a Single Index Accessible in a
Variety of Formats

The government index of public information should be in addition to
inventories of information kept within individual government
agencies.

8. The Federal Government Should Guarantee the Public's Access to
Public
Information, Regardless of Where They Live and Work, through
National
Networks and Programs like the Depository Library Program

Government agencies should periodically review such programs as
well
as the emerging technology to ensure that access to public
information
remains inexpensive and convenient to the public.

Conclusion

The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science offers
these
Principles of Public Information as a foundation for the decisions made
throughout the Federal Government and the nation regarding issues of
public
information. We urge all branches of the Federal Government, state
and
local governments and the private sector to utilize these principles in
the
development of information policies and in the creation, use,
dissemination
and preservation of public information. We believe that in so acting,
they
will serve the best interests of the nation and the people in the
Information Age.

Attachment F:

Title 44 United States Code Chapter 19--Depository Library Program

Attachment F

Title 44 United States Code Chapter 19--
Depository Library Program

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]/1/
[Laws in
effect as of January 3, 1995] [Document not affected by Public Laws
enacted
between January 3, 1995 and May 1, 1996]

/1/ Historical and revision notes removed.

TITLE 44--PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS

CHAPTER 19--DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM

Sec. 1901. Definition of Government publication

``Government publication'' as used in this chapter, means
informational matter which is published as an individual document at
Government expense, or as required by law.

Sec. 1902. Availability of Government publications through
Superintendent
of Documents; lists of publications not ordered from Government
Printing Office

Government publications, except those determined by their issuing
components to be required for official use only or for strictly
administrative or operational purposes which have no public interest or
educational value and publications classified for reasons of national
security, shall be made available to depository libraries through the
facilities of the Superintendent of Documents for public information.
Each
component of the Government shall furnish the Superintendent of
Documents a
list of such publications it issued during the previous month, that were
obtained from sources other than the Government Printing Office.

Sec. 1903. Distribution of publications to depository libraries; notice
to Government components; cost of printing and binding

Upon request of the Superintendent of Documents, components of
the
Government ordering the printing of publications shall either increase
or
decrease the number of copies of publications furnished for distribution
to
designated depository libraries and State libraries so that the number of
copies delivered to the Superintendent of Documents is equal to the
number
of libraries on the list. The number thus delivered may not be restricted
by any statutory limitation in force on August 9, 1962. Copies of
publications furnished the Superintendent of Documents for
distribution to
designated depository libraries shall include-- the journals of the Senate
and House of Representatives; all publications, not confidential in
character, printed upon the requisition of a congressional committee;

Senate and House public bills and resolutions; and reports on
private bills, concurrent or simple resolutions; but not so-called
cooperative publications which must necessarily be sold in order to
be self-sustaining.

The Superintendent of Documents shall currently inform the
components
of the Government ordering printing of publications as to the number
of
copies of their publications required for distribution to depository
libraries. The cost of printing and binding those publications
distributed
to depository libraries obtained elsewhere than from the Government
Printing Office, shall be borne by components of the Government
responsible
for their issuance; those requisitioned from the Government Printing
Office
shall be charged to appropriations provided the Superintendent of
Documents
for that purpose.

Sec. 1904. Classified list of Government publications for selection by
depositories

The Superintendent of Documents shall currently issue a classified
list of Government publications in suitable form, containing
annotations of
contents and listed by item identification numbers to facilitate the
selection of only those publications needed by depository libraries. The
selected publications shall be distributed to depository libraries in
accordance with regulations of the Superintendent of Documents, as
long as
they fulfill the conditions provided by law.

Sec. 1905. Distribution to depositories; designation of additional
libraries; justification; authorization for certain designations

The Government publications selected from lists prepared by the
Superintendent of Documents, and when requested from him, shall be
distributed to depository libraries specifically designated by law and to
libraries designated by Senators, Representatives, and the Resident
Commissioner from Puerto Rico, by the Commissioner of the District of
Columbia,/2/ and by the Governors of Guam, American Samoa, and the
Virgin
Islands, respectively. Additional libraries within areas served by
Representatives or the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico may
be
designated by them to receive Government publications to the extent
that
the total number of libraries designated by them does not exceed two
within
each area. Not more than two additional libraries within a State may be
designated by each Senator from the State. Before an additional library
within a State, congressional district or the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico
is designated as a depository for Government publications, the head of
that
library shall furnish his Senator, Representative, or the Resident
Commissioner from Puerto Rico, as the case may be, with justification
of
the necessity for the additional designation. The justification, which
shall also include a certification as to the need for the additional
depository library designation, shall be signed by the head of every
existing depository library within the congressional district or the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or by the head of the library authority of
the
State or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, within which the additional
depository library is to be located. The justification for additional
depository library designations shall be transmitted to the
Superintendent
of Documents by the Senator, Representative, or the Resident
Commissioner
from Puerto Rico, as the case may be. The Commissioner of the District
of
Columbia may designate two depository libraries in the District of
Columbia, the Governor of Guam and the Governor of American Samoa
may each
designate one depository library in Guam and American Samoa,
respectively,
and the Governor of the Virgin Islands may designate one depository
library
on the island of Saint Thomas and one on the island of Saint Croix.

/2/ See Transfer of Functions note below.

Transfer of Functions

Office of Commissioner of District of Columbia, as established under
Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1967, eff. Nov. 3, 1967 (in part), 32 F.R. 11669,
81 Stat. 948, abolished as of noon Jan. 2, 1975, by Pub. L. 93-198,
title VII, Sec. 711, Dec. 24, 1973, 87 Stat. 818, and replaced by office
of Mayor of District of Columbia by section 421 of Pub. L. 93-198,
classified to section 1-241 of District of Columbia Code.

Northern Marianas College as Depository

Pub. L. 101-219, title II, Sec. 202, Dec. 12, 1989, 103 Stat.
1874, provided that: ``The Northern Marianas College is hereby
constituted
a depository to receive Government publications, and the
Superintendent of
Documents shall supply to the Northern Marianas College one copy of
each
such publication in the same form as supplied to other designated
depositories.''

District of Columbia Public Library as Depository

Act Sept. 28, 1943, ch. 243, 57 Stat. 568, provided: ``That the
Public Library of the District of Columbia is hereby constituted a
designated depository of governmental publications, and the
Superintendent
of Documents shall supply to such library one copy of each such
publication, in the same form as supplied to other designated
depositories.''

Sec. 1906. Land-grant colleges constituted depositories

Land-grant colleges are constituted depositories to receive
Government
publications subject to the depository laws.

Sec. 1907. Libraries of executive departments, service academies, and
independent agencies constituted depositories; certifications of need;
disposal of unwanted publications

The libraries of the executive departments, of the United States
Military Academy, of the United States Naval Academy, of the United
States
Air Force Academy, of the United States Coast Guard Academy, and of
the
United States Merchant Marine Academy are designated depositories of
Government publications. A depository library within each
independent
agency may be designated upon certification of need by the head of the
independent agency to the Superintendent of Documents. Additional
depository libraries within executive departments and independent
agencies
may be designated to receive Government publications to the extent
that the
number so designated does not exceed the number of major bureaus or
divisions of the departments and independent agencies. These
designations
may be made only after certification by the head of each executive
department or independent agency to the Superintendent of Documents
as to
the justifiable need for additional depository libraries. Depository
libraries within executive departments and independent agencies may
dispose
of unwanted Government publications after first offering them to the
Library of Congress and the Archivist of the United States.

Sec. 1908. American Antiquarian Society to receive certain
publications

One copy of the public journals of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives, and of the documents published under the orders of
the
Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, shall be transmitted
to
the Executive of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the use and
benefit
of the American Antiquarian Society of the Commonwealth.

Sec. 1909. Requirements of depository libraries; reports on conditions;
investigations; termination; replacement

Only a library able to provide custody and service for depository
materials and located in an area where it can best serve the public need,
and within an area not already adequately served by existing depository
libraries may be designated by Senators, Representatives, the Resident
Commissioner from Puerto Rico, the Commissioner of the District of
Columbia,/3/ or the Governors of Guam, American Samoa, or the Virgin
Islands as a depository of Government publications. The designated
depository libraries shall report to the Superintendent of Documents at
least every two years concerning their condition.

/3/ See Transfer of Functions note below.

The Superintendent of Documents shall make firsthand
investigation of
conditions for which need is indicated and include the results of
investigations in his annual report. When he ascertains that the
number of
books in a depository library is below ten thousand, other than
Government
publications, or it has ceased to be maintained so as to be accessible to
the public, or that the Government publications which have been
furnished
the library have not been properly maintained, he shall delete the
library
from the list of depository libraries if the library fails to correct the
unsatisfactory conditions within six months. The Representative or the
Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico in whose area the library is
located
or the Senator who made the designation, or a successor of the Senator,
and, in the case of a library in the District of Columbia, the
Commissioner
of the District of Columbia, and, in the case of a library in Guam,
American Samoa, or the Virgin Islands, the Governor, shall be notified
and
shall then be authorized to designate another library within the area
served by him, which shall meet the conditions herein required, but
which
may not be in excess of the number of depository libraries authorized
by
laws within the State, district, territory, or the Commonwealth of
Puerto
Rico, as the case may be.

Transfer of Functions

Sec. 1910. Designations of replacement depositories; limitations on
numbers; conditions

The designation of a library to replace a depository library, other
than a depository library specifically designated by law, may be made
only
within the limitations on total numbers specified by

section 1905 of this title, and only when the library to be replaced
ceases
to exist, or when the library voluntarily relinquishes its depository
status, or when the Superintendent of Documents determines that it no
longer fulfills the conditions provided by law for depository libraries.

Sec. 1911. Free use of Government publications in depositories;
disposal
of unwanted publications

Depository libraries shall make Government publications available
for
the free use of the general public, and may dispose of them after
retention
for five years under section 1912 of this title, if the depository library
is served by a regional depository library. Depository libraries not
served by a regional depository library, or that are regional depository
libraries themselves, shall retain Government publications permanently
in
either printed form or in microfacsimile form, except superseded
publications or those issued later in bound form which may be
discarded as
authorized by the Superintendent of Documents.

Sec. 1912. Regional depositories; designation; functions; disposal of
publications

Not more than two depository libraries in each State and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico may be designated as regional
depositories, and
shall receive from the Superintendent of Documents copies of all new
and
revised Government publications authorized for distribution to
depository
libraries. Designation of regional depository libraries may be made by a
Senator or the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico within the
areas
served by them, after approval by the head of the library authority of
the
State or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as the case may be, who
shall
first ascertain from the head of the library to be so designated that the
library will, in addition to fulfilling the requirements for depository
libraries, retain at least one copy of all Government publications either
in printed or microfacsimile form (except those authorized to be
discarded
by the Superintendent of Documents); and within the region served will
provide interlibrary loan, reference service, and assistance for
depository
libraries in the disposal of unwanted Government publications. The
agreement to function as a regional depository library shall be
transmitted
to the Superintendent of Documents by the Senator or the Resident
Commissioner from Puerto Rico when the designation is made.

The libraries designated as regional depositories may permit
depository libraries, within the areas served by them, to dispose of
Government publications which they have retained for five years after
first
offering them to other depository libraries within their area, then to
other libraries.

Sec. 1913. Appropriations for supplying depository libraries;
restriction

Appropriations available for the Office of Superintendent of
Documents
may not be used to supply depository libraries documents, books, or
other
printed matter not requested by them, and their requests shall be
subject
to approval by the Superintendent of Documents.

Sec. 1914. Implementation of depository library program by Public
Printer

The Public Printer, with the approval of the Joint Committee on
Printing, as provided by section 103 of this title, may use any measures
he
considers necessary for the economical and practical implementation of
this
chapter.

Sec. 1915. Highest State appellate court libraries as depository
libraries

Upon the request of the highest appellate court of a State, the Public
Printer is authorized to designate the library of that court as a
depository library. The provisions of section 1911 of this title shall not
apply to any library so designated.

Sec. 1916. Designation of libraries of accredited law schools as
depository libraries

(a) Upon the request of any accredited law school, the Public Printer
shall designate the library of such law school as a depository library.
The Public Printer may not make such designation unless he determines
that
the library involved meets the requirements of this chapter, other than
those requirements of the first undesignated paragraph of section 1909
of
this title which relate to the location of such library.

(b) For purposes of this section, the term ``accredited law school''
means any law school which is accredited by a nationally recognized
accrediting agency or association approved by the Commissioner of
Education/4/ for such purpose or accredited by the highest appellate
court
of the State in which the law school is located.

/4/ See Section 1916, Transfer of Functions.

Transfer of Functions

Functions of Commissioner of Education transferred to Secretary of
Education pursuant to section 3441(a)(1) of Title 20, Education.

Attachment G:

Summary of the Results of the
1995 Biennial Survey of Federal Depository Libraries

Attachment G

Summary of the Results of the
1995 Biennial Survey of Federal Depository Libraries

As of January 16, 1996 1,372 Depository Libraries Responding

Online Catalog
Libraries with online catalogs . . . . . . . . . . .1,175 (85.6%)
Libraries with online catalogs with dial-in access . .956 (69.6%)
Libraries with online catalogs accessible from the Internet854 (62.2%)
Libraries with online catalogs networked with other libraries745
(54.3%)

Internet Tools Available for Primary Patrons
E-mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .664 (48.3%)
Telnet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .799 (58.2%)
FTP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .695 (50.6%)
Gopher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .841 (61.2%)
WAIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .516 (37.6%)
WWW-nongraphical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .559 (40.7%)
WWW-graphical. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .693 (50.5%)
No current Internet access . . . . . . . . . . . . . .265 (19.3%)
Plan for Internet access in 1 year . . . . . . . . . .216 (15.7%)
Plan for Internet access in 2 years. . . . . . . . . 115 ( 8.3%)
No plans to have Internet access for staff . . . . . .87 ( 6.3%)

Internet Tools Available at Public Access Workstations
E-mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .294 (21.4%)
Telnet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .534 (38.9%)
FTP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .423 (30.8%)
Gopher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .617 (44.9%)
WAIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .370 (26.9%)
WWW-nongraphical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .375 (27.3%)
WWW-graphical. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .516 (37.6%)
No current Internet access . . . . . . . . . . . . . .341 (24.8%)
Plan for Internet access in 1 year . . . . . . . . . .253 (18.4%)
Plan for Internet access in 2 years. . . . . . . . . .160 (11.6%)
No plans to have Internet access for staff . . . . . .169 (12.3%)

Libraries Providing GPO Access
Registered for GPO Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .545 (39.7%)
Provide through another institution's gateway. . . . .283 (20.6%)
No, but have plans to within 1 year. . . . . . . . . .272 (19.8%)
No, but have plans to within 2 years . . . . . . . . 131 ( 9.5%)
No, have no plans to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 ( 9.2%)
Use of the GPO Federal Bulletin Board
Daily or almost daily use by staff . . . . . . . . . .15 ( 1.0%)
Occasional use by staff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 ( 8.9%)
Less than once a week use by staff . . . . . . . . . .481 (35.0%)
Have not yet registered for the GPO Federal Bulletin Board732 (53.3%)

Estimated Daily Use of Depository Electronic Products

CD-ROMs

Not Used. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211 (15.3%)
Less than 30 minutes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .483 (35.2%)
30-59 minutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240 (17.4%)
1-1.5 hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 ( 9.5%)
More than 1.5 hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .301 (21.9%)

Diskettes

Not Used. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,026 (74.8%)
Less than 30 minutes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .302 (22.0%)
30-59 minutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 ( 1.1%)
1-1.5 hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ( 0.4%)
More than 1.5 hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 ( 0.9%)

GPO Access

Not Used. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .579 (42.2%)
Less than 30 minutes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .583 (42.5%)
30-59 minutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 ( 8.5%)
1-1.5 hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 ( 2.9%)
More than 1.5 hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 ( 2.5%)

Federal Bulletin Board

Not Used. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .936 (68.2%)
Less than 30 minutes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .381 (27.8%)
30-59 minutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 ( 2.3%)
1-1.5 hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ( 0.3%)
More than 1.5 hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ( 0.2%)

SuDocs World Wide Web Site

Not Used. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .692 (50.4%)
Less than 30 minutes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .547 (40.0%)
30-59 minutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 ( 5.2%)
1-1.5 hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 ( 1.2%)
More than 1.5 hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 ( 1.7%)
Accessibility of Depository CD-ROMs
Accessible from stand-alone workstations . . . . . .1,140 (83.0%)
Accessible from Documents or reference department LAN.157 (11.4%)
Accessible from library-wide LAN . . . . . . . . . . .203 (14.7%)
Accessible through a Wide Area Network, beyond the library109 ( 7.9%)

Have CD-ROM capability -- do not select depository CD-ROMs73 (
5.3%)
Select depository CD-ROMs -- do not have CD-ROM capability56 (
4.0%)
Do not have CD-ROM capability -- do not select depository
CD-ROMs42 ( 3.0%)

CD-ROM Drives Primarily Supporting the Documents Collection
None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 ( 8.1%)
1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 (16.7%)
2-4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .408 (29.7%)
5-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .327 (23.8%)
11-20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164 (11.9%)
21-40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 ( 5.9%)
More than 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 ( 2.6%)

Computer Workstations Available Primarily for Depository Patron Use

No. of
Computers PCXT 286 386 486 Pentium Mac

0 636 505 421 262 568 603
1 95 199 275 392 136 68
2-4 85 76 180 402 60 52
5-10 8 9 18 60 7 11
11-20 4 2 4 7 1 1
21-40 1 0 2 4 0 0
40+ 1 1 1 4 3 3

Computer Workstations with Internet Access Available for Depository
Patron Use

No. of
Computers PCXT 286 386 486 Pentium Mac

0 811 700 667 564 662 675
1 22 26 65 174 50 39
2-4 26 16 57 147 47 28
5-10 20 9 25 76 17 26
11-20 13 6 18 55 18 12
21-40 8 1 7 28 9 6
40+ 3 1 9 36 9 10

Methods of Patron Access to the Internet
Modem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99 ( 7.2%)
Direct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .625 (45.5%)
Both modem and direct. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161 (11.7%)
Not Available. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 ( 5.6%)

If electronic media and online services replace most paper and
microfiche
distributed through the FDLP in the next two years, would your library
retain depository status?

Yes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,233 (89.8%)
No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95 ( 6.9%)
Left blank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 ( 3.0%)

Follow-up letters were sent to those depository libraries who responded
"no" to the above question or left it blank. Of these, 62 depository
libraries responded to the letter with more information concerning their
initial response.

Cited Financial Reasons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26.3%
Budget shortfall - not keeping pace with inflation
Mushrooming costs for equipment
Higher salaries for staff expertise

Cited Staffing Implications of the Transition. . . . . . . .17.5%
Lack of public service staff
Lack of patron expertise
Training of patrons
Training of staff on new systems

Cited Problems with Identifying/Preserving/Archiving
Electronic Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.1%
Cited Problems with Electronic Information Products. . . . . 8.8%
Lack of uniform graphical interfaces
Lack of software standardization

Cited Other Library Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8%
Automation
Upgrading OPAC
Installing LAN

Other Reasons Cited:

- FDLP no longer an exclusive source for Government information

- Obligations remain but costs, primarily for equipment, increase

- Access will be restricted to the computer literate

Attachment H:

Recommended Minimum Specifications for
Public Access Workstations in Federal Depository Libraries

Attachment H

Recommended Minimum Specifications for
Public Access Workstations in Federal Depository Libraries

Published in Administrative Notes, May 15, 1996

These recommended specifications are intended to assist depository
librarians who are planning purchases of new personal computers (PCs)
for
public use in Federal depository libraries. The "Recommended
Minimum
Technical Guidelines," last published by the Library Programs Service
(LPS)
in January 1995, are superseded.

Related Issues and Considerations

The specifications are intended to assist in the purchase of new
public access work stations capable of using most text-based FDLP
electronic information products. Additional or different capabilities
may
be desirable for work stations used by library staff. Some libraries may
elect to add applications software, such as spreadsheet, word
processing,
or data base software, to their public access work stations, but this is a
local resource management decision.

LPS has been advised that work stations which conform to these
minimum
specifications may not be adequate for electronic cartographic
information,
or to run geographic information system (GIS) software. LPS is working
with the Cartographic Users Advisory Council (CUAC) to develop a
supplemental set of specifications which support GIS applications.

Depository libraries are encouraged to adapt this menu of
specifications to fit their local situations. Although these
specifications describe a robust multi-purpose single work station,
many
institutions are providing electronic access in networked environments.
LPS cannot anticipate or address every possible depository library
computer
scenario. Rather, these specifications are intended to assist depository
staff in making informed purchases which will best achieve the goal of
providing public access to Federal Government information in a variety
of
electronic formats.

Computer equipment in depository libraries must be sufficient to
allow
timely and equitable public access to the Government information
products
accessible via Internet, to CD-ROMs, and should allow printing or
downloading information selected by the user.

Given the large variation in the size of Federal depository libraries
and the numbers of users served, LPS can not recommend a universal
standard
for the number of public access work stations in any given library.
However, when assessing work station needs, librarians should
consider such
local factors as the amount of information provided over the Internet
compared with the amount from CD-ROM, whether and how the work
stations are
networked, to what extent users are permitted to perform additional
information processing at the public access work stations, whether
users
are experiencing extended waiting times at library peak service hours,
etc.

LPS has deliberately not provided specifications for Apple Macintosh
(Mac) or UNIX work stations. Based on responses to the 1995 Biennial
Survey, Mac's are the computer of choice for a small minority of the
depository libraries. However, depository libraries which have a Mac
or
UNIX environment should assess their functional capabilities in light of
these specifications.

Many depository libraries have existing computer equipment which
is no
longer "state of the art." These specifications are not intended to be
applied retrospectively to existing equipment, although they may assist
in
determining the appropriate time for replacement or upgrading.

These specifications are not intended to describe the best possible
work station. Instead, they are the minimum, or baseline,
specifications
which should be considered when purchasing new stand-alone public
access
work stations. LPS encourages the purchase of equipment which
exceeds
these minimum specifications if economically feasible. The speed at
which
the computer capabilities evolve suggests that a higher initial outlay
will
result in an extended useful life for the equipment.

Minimum Work Station Configuration

Computer IBM-compatible Pentium chip computer operating at
100 mhz

Memory 16 megabytes (Mb) of RAM

Hard Disk Drive 1.2 gigabytes (Gb) capacity; 12 ms or less access time;
IDE or SCSI interface

Floppy Disk 3.5" high density drive. Consider a 5.25" drive if you
have a collection of 5.25" diskettes that have not yet
been converted to 3.5".

Expansion Three free expansion bus board slots; 1 or more
additional hard drive bay(s)
desirable; 2 serial ports and 1 parallel ports.

Monitor Super VGA (SVGA) compatible, with at least 70Mhz
vertical
refresh rate at SVGA resolution (800X600) non-interlaced,
0.28 or smaller dot pitch; display card which supports
800X600 resolution at 70Mhz or faster. 15" monitor
minimum, but consider 17". Consider 21" to display full
page images.

CD-ROM Drive For stand-alone use, single or multiple platter drive
(ISO 9660 standard). 300 K/byte per second transfer rate,
quadruple (4X) speed support. CD-ROM XA support.

Printer Ink jet or laser printer which supports PostScript. 2 Mb
memory. Consider color.

Pointing Device Microsoft-compatible mouse or similar pointing device
to
support programs and Microsoft Windows.

Network Connection Direct Internet or SLIP/PPP connection.

Modem 28.8 kbps data transfer rate, meeting V.32, V.42, V.42bis
or MNP 5 standards and compatible with Hayes "AT"
command
set.

Operating System Microsoft Windows 3.1 or later (requires MS-DOS 3.3
or
higher). Device driver for CD-ROM drive and MS-DOS
CD-ROM
extensions.

Communications Package which supports multiple file transfer
protocols;
several terminal emulations such as ANSI-BBS, TTY, VT-100.
Data transfer rates up to 28.8 kbps. Supports Hayes "AT"
compatible modems; manages telnet sessions. Consider
ability to "script" log-on files.

Client Software World Wide Web graphical browser with forms
support.
ANSI Z39.50 compatible, GILS-aware WAIS client. Consider
EINet WinWais customized for GPO Access.

Viewers PDF file viewer. GIF and JPEG graphics viewers.

Applications Software Options

Database dBASE file format compatible or dBASE and ASCII
comma
delimited file importing database management software;
useful to have fixed field format (SDF) import ability.

Spreadsheet Lotus .WK1 file format compatible software; support for
other formats such as Excel and Quattro Pro.

Word Processing Software capable of importing major text file formats
(Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, Multimate, etc.) and ASCII
text files.

(Published in Administrative Notes, the newsletter of the Federal
Depository Library Program, May 15, 1996)

Attachment I:

Comments from U.S. Senators

Attachment I

List of Enclosures

Chesapeake Public Library System, Chesapeake, Virginia

City of Norfolk, Department of Libraries, Norfolk, Virginia

College of William & Mary, Marshall-Wythe Law Library, Williamsburg,
Virginia

College of William & Mary, Office of the Dean of University Libraries,
Williamsburg, Virginia

Eastern Kentucky University, John Grant Crabbe Library, Richmond,
Kentucky

George Mason University Library, Fairfax, Virginia (2)

The Library, Louisville, Kentucky

The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia

Library of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,
Richmond, Virginia

Mary Washington College, Simpson Library, Fredericksburg, Virginia

Murray State University, Office of the Dean, University Libraries,
Murray,
Kentucky

National Defense University, Armed Forces Staff College, Library,
Norfolk,
Virginia

Old Dominion University, Office of the University Librarian, Norfolk,
Virginia

Supreme Court of Virginia, Office of the Chief Justice, Richmond,
Virginia
Enclosure: Virginia State Law Library, Richmond, Virginia

University of Virginia, Alderman Library, Charlottesville, Virginia

University of Virginia, Arthur J. Morris Law Library, Charlottesvlle, VA

Virginia Military Institute, Preston Library, Lexington, Virginia

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, University
Libraries,
Blacksburg, Virginia

Virginia State University, Library & Technology Services, Petersburg,
Virginia

Washington and Lee University, Law Library, Lexington, Virginia

Attachment J:

Minutes from the Meeting of FDLP Study Working Group and Advisors,

April 18, 1996

Attachment J

Minutes from the Meeting of FDLP Study Working Group and Advisors,
April
18, 1996

On April 18, 1996, there was a meeting of the FDLP Study working
group
and advisors in order to provide the advisors with an opportunity to
present their preliminary reactions on the draft Report to Congress.
The
minutes of the meeting are provided below. Supplemental statements
submitted by the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer, the
library association advisors, and the National Commission on Libraries
and
Information Science (NCLIS) are provided in Attachments K, M, and N
respectively.

MINUTES Meeting of the Working Group and Advisors, April 18, 1996
Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Room 628

Wayne Kelley, Superintendent of Documents and chair of the FDLP
Study,
opened the meeting at 2:08 p.m. by thanking those present for
attending.
Mr. Kelley then turned the floor over to Ms. Judy Russell, Director,
Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services and Chair of
the
FDLP Study working group.

Ms. Russell explained that the joint meeting had been arranged in
response to requests from several advisors for an opportunity to meet
with
working group in order to share their views on the FDLP Strategic Plan
and
draft FDLP Study Report. She emphasized that the advisors would be
presenting their preliminary comments on the draft report. The
comment
period for the FDLP Study would run through the end of May, by which
time
final comments would be expected for incorporation into the report to
Congress. Ms. Russell announced that four advisors would be
speaking at
the meeting. These included representatives from the National
Commission
on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS), the Depository Library
Council to the Public Printer (DLC), the Information Industry
Association
(IIA) and the American Library Association (ALA). ALA would be
speaking on
behalf of itself and several other library associations.

As several of the advisors and working group members had not met
previously, Mr. Kelley asked those in attendance to introduce
themselves.

1. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS)

After introductions were completed, Ms. Russell announced the first
speaker, Ms. Joan Challinor from the National Commission on
Libraries and
Information Science (NCLIS).

Ms. Challinor explained that she was speaking on behalf of Ms.
Jeanne
Hurley Simon, Chair of NCLIS, as Ms. Simon was unable to attend. She
thanked the Government Printing Office for the opportunity to share
some
preliminary thoughts on the draft report. Ms. Challinor explained that
NCLIS members had not yet had the opportunity to review the report
thoroughly. Therefore, the comments she was providing were
preliminary and
would be followed with more detailed comments at a later date. Her

comments would address four areas: NCLIS's Principles of Public
Information, the results of NCLIS's surveys of public libraries Internet
involvement, the Commission's interest in assisting with the proposed
FDLP
technical implementation assistance, and NCLIS's general concerns
about
citizen access to Federal information.

Ms. Challinor provided a brief history of NCLIS, explaining that it
was
established as an independent agency in 1970. NCLIS advises both the
President and the Congress on national and international policy
relating to
library and information science. It is a citizen's advisory body, and as
such, it represents the interests of the people.

On July 28, 1990, NCLIS adopted its Principles of Public Information.
These were included in the draft FDLP Study Report as Attachment E.
The
eight statements were adopted as an interrelated whole (no one of the
principles more important than another) and were meant to serve as the
underlying basis for the formulation of all future national information
policies. NCLIS was glad to see these principles incorporated into the
draft report because any actions taken as a result would need to balance
Congressional concerns for cost efficiencies with these basic principles
regarding the creation, access, use, and dissemination of Government
information.

Ms. Challinor presented findings from two NCLIS studies on public
library Internet connectivity. The first study, conducted in 1994, found
that 20.9% of the nation's public libraries had Internet connections.
This
number had increased to 44.6% by the time of the second study in 1996.
Ms.
Challinor explained that any plan for the Federal Depository Library
Program (FDLP) would have to take into account this rapid rate of
change.
In addition to the two studies on Internet connectivity, NCLIS also
developed cost models for public library connections to the Internet in
1995. She added that a cost model for 1996 would be included in
NCLIS's
future comments as results from the 1996 NCLIS survey are analyzed
and made
available.

Ms. Challinor stressed that any plan for the FDLP should address the
access needs of the general public and should be based on current,
reliable, and consistent information about the capabilities of both
Federal
agencies and depository libraries, as well as information on the public's
need for convenient and inexpensive access to electronic Government
information. NCLIS believes that the need to gather such background
information makes a two-year transition period insufficient. NCLIS
believes a five-year transition period from 1996 to 2001 would be more
reasonable.

NCLIS also believes that plans for the FDLP need to be made in a
Government-wide context. This includes an evaluation of how well the
publics' need for access to public information is being addressed
through
the FDLP in relation to electronic services like GPO Access, the Library
of
Congress' THOMAS system, the Government Information Locator
Service (GILS)
and agencies' Internet gopher sites and World Wide Web (WWW) home
pages.
To this end, Ms. Challinor explained that NCLIS would be interested
and
willing to participate in collaborative efforts to study and analyze this
issue.

The floor was then opened to questions for Ms. Challinor. Mr.
Kelley
inquired as to the type of study NCLIS believed was necessary. Ms.
Challinor referred this question to the NCLIS Executive Director, Mr.
Peter Young.

Mr. Young replied that the type of study that NCLIS had in mind was
similar to the FFRDC study called for in the initial stages of the FDLP
Study. Although some information from GPO's Biennial Survey has
been
included in the draft report, he stated that NCLIS has seen how rapidly
this type of information becomes outdated. The study would need to
address
such issues as the role depository libraries will play for the members of
the public who cannot access Government information from their
homes; what
types of things depository libraries will need to meet the needs of users;
and what the best use of funds would be (in reference to the $500,000 in
technology grants proposed in the draft report). Mr. Young also
explained
that the study should not be a one-time effort -- information must be
gathered continually due to the rapid rate of change. He also stated the
NCLIS sees a need for the identification of Government WWW sites in
order
to authenticate and preserve information made available through them.
This
will be critical to the goal of preserving history. Mr. Young finished by
reiterating the need for a study to gather reliable data which could be
used to set a reasonable, sensible direction for the program.

No further comments or questions for NCLIS were offered from the
floor.
Ms. Russell introduced the next speaker, Mr. Dan O'Mahony, outgoing
chair
of the Depository Library Council (DLC).

2. Depository Library Council to the Pubic Printer (DLC)

Mr. O'Mahony expressed the DLC's thanks for the opportunity to
comment
on the draft report and for the scheduling of the meeting around the
Depository Library Conference which had just ended that morning. He
explained that the Council was pleased that the comment period for the
report had been continued and stated that final comments from the
DLC on
the report would be provided by the end of May. He stated that it was
obvious that previous comments from the council had been
incorporated
and/or taken into account in the draft report. Mr. O'Mahony said that
overall the DLC's reaction to the report was positive. He stated that the
DLC was pleased to see that the report was written in the tone of the
Senate report language with its emphasis on improving access to
Government
information. He informed those present that many of the issues in the
report were discussed by depository librarians at the recent conference.

Mr. O'Mahony identified several things in the report that the DLC
was
particularly pleased with. These included the adoption of a more
realistic
5-year time frame that would give patrons, depository libraries and
GPO the
chance for a successful transition. Mr. O'Mahony also told the group
that
the DLC has accepted the principles for Federal information, and the
mission and goals for the FDLP, as stated in the draft report. The DLC
was
pleased that the report acknowledged that electronic dissemination
provides
an opportunity to expand the array of information available through
the
FDLP. The DLC believes that Government-wide cooperation is needed
for a
successful transition and recognizes that this will entail changes to
Title
44 of the U.S. Code. The Council also was pleased to see that the draft
report recognized in concept the continued development of the
traditional
functions of the program, particularly the cataloging and public service
functions of depository libraries.

Mr. O'Mahony shared with the group some of the concerns that
remain for
both the DLC and depository librarians. One of the primary concerns is
that the transition should support and enhance public access, without
creating new barriers to it. This will necessitate the adoption of a
standardized, coordinated bibliographic system to assist in the location
of
Government information in depository libraries regardless of format.
There
also is deep concern in the depository community regarding whether
the

public will be able to access information in the future. A standardized
method for providing permanent access to Government information is
needed
and the DLC believes that the FDLP needs to be systematically notified
when
the location of files or information is changed.

The DLC also is concerned with the appropriateness of formats and
their
effect on public use of information. Mr. O'Mahony explained that a
number
of stories were shared at the depository conference concerning format
problems encountered with downloaded Government information files.
Depository librarians also are concerned with the increasing number of
restrictions placed on Government information (i.e. user or access fees)
and the potential transitional costs to the libraries for equipment, staff
and training.

In conclusion, Mr. O'Mahony stated that the DLC strongly supported
the
technological implementation assistance proposed in the draft report.
He
explained that depository librarians are excited about the possibilities
for the transition for a more electronic FDLP, but also are cautious due
to
concerns about the potential impact of the transition on end users.

There were no questions for Mr. O'Mahony from the floor. Ms.
Russell
then introduced Mr. Dan Duncan, the Vice President of Government
Relations
for the Information Industry Association (IIA).

3. Information Industry Association (IIA)

Mr. Duncan commended Congress for mandating, and GPO for
undertaking,
the FDLP Study and stated that the IIA felt that many important issues
were
presented in the draft report. Mr. Duncan stated that the IIA has long
supported the FDLP and GPO as the repository for Government
information.
However, he cautioned that GPO should not attempt to be all things to
all
people.

He explained that IIA is an association representing more than 550
companies involved in the wide variety of services related to
information
dissemination. For Government information, the private sector plays
an
integral role in the dissemination process by disseminating information
to
the public after adding value to it. IIA members are also part of the
public who are served by, and benefit from, the availability of
Government
information as are their customers.

The IIA is pleased that the draft report has given consideration to the
principles expressed in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), especially
the
inclusion of principles recognizing the importance of no copyright-like
restrictions, no exclusive distribution arrangements and the guarantee
of
timely and equitable access to underlying data. However, the IIA is
concerned that GPO is trying to doing too much. The IIA believes that
in
the report GPO is proposing a shift from its traditional role as a
facilitator to the new role of primary publisher. This shift would
represent a break from GPO's mission and historical model and would
lead,
IIA believes, to unnecessary expenditures. Mr. Duncan stated that the
IIA
also views such a change as an attempt to further centralize
information
dissemination at a time when Congress is calling for increased
decentralization.

Mr. Duncan raised the issue of standardization as an example of how
IIA
believes GPO is trying to do too much. He explained that according to
the
draft report, GPO would reformat information to meet needs beyond
those
which the publishing agency sees necessary for its constituencies. The
IIA
feels that format decisions should be made by the agencies and not by
GPO.
Mr. Duncan also explained that IIA felt that GPO's belief that
standardization of Government information would help the private
sector is
unfounded -- the private sector would find it more useful to have access
to
underlying data. Instead of the Government developing standards,
which are
slow to be accepted and to change, the IIA would advocate that this
process
should take place in the private sector, driven by the marketplace. GPO
should adopt a lowest common denominator policy whereby
information would
be distributed in the format which maximizes its accessibility, not
necessarily its usefulness. IIA does not feel GPO is in a position to
assume the level of control it would need to reformat or standardize
data
to meet public needs. In addition, IIA feels that it implementation of
Government-wide application of standards would be impossible and
that
instead, the Government should continue to use commercial
off-the-shelf
software for its publishing.

Mr. Duncan explained that the IIA also would be concerned about
any
attempts that might be made to authenticate Government information.
This,
he stated, would drive users to the original Government document and
would
harm private sector publishers. Authentication efforts also would
conflict
with standardization, as the authenticity of information could not be
guaranteed if GPO reformatted agency data. IIA feels that issues
concerning authenticity could be addressed better through the
establishment
of Chief Information Officers at each Federal agency as outlined in the
PRA.

The IIA does not object to the technology grants proposed in the draft
report. If Congress decides to fund this activity, the IIA recommends
that
depository libraries be allowed to decide how best to use these funds.
IIA
does not believe GPO should dictate to the libraries how to spend the
money. In conclusion, Mr. Duncan reiterated the IIA viewpoint that
GPO
should not attempt to expand its role beyond its traditional mission.

There were no questions from the floor for Mr. Duncan. Ms. Russell
introduced the final speaker, Ms. Carol Henderson, Director of the
Washington Office of the American Library Association (ALA).

4. American Library Association (ALA) on Behalf of a Group of Library
Associations

Ms. Henderson explained that several library associations had
worked
together on the comments she would be providing, including the
Association
for Research Libraries (ARL), the American Association of Law Libraries
(AALL), the Medical Library Association (MLA), the Special Libraries
Association (SLA) and the Government Document Roundtable of ALA
(GODORT).
She indicated that her oral statements would be followed later by
written
comments on the draft FDLP Study Report and final task reports, also
prepared jointly with the other library associations.

Ms. Henderson noted that like the DLC, the library associations felt
that GPO had been responsive to their earlier comments in the drafting
of
the report. They felt that the FDLP Study process was very
participatory
and that all those involved with the FDLP had been included. She
explained
that the library associations were pleased with the more realistic time
frame proposed in the draft report for the transition to electronic
dissemination. Ms. Henderson also stated that the associations were
glad
to see that the FDLP Study Report recognized the continued viability of
a
variety of formats for the FDLP. The library associations feel that the
report recognizes that redundancy is sometimes necessary and that it
can,
in certain circumstances, foster innovation and guarantee a variety of
sources for information. Ms. Henderson stated that the associations
support a centralized or coordinated bibliographic system for
Government
information.

The library associations have several continuing concerns. As Ms.
Henderson stated, the associations do not feel that the findings of the
FDLP Study were based on substantive data. In this regard, they
support
approval of the capabilities study to provide technical implementation
assistance as proposed in the draft report. Ms. Henderson also
expressed
their concern regarding long term, permanent access to Government
information. In the draft report, GPO has proposed taking on major
responsibilities in this area, but she noted that hard data on how this
would be done was missing. The associations also are concerned about
continued no fee access to Government information. This is a
government
responsibility and a key principle of the FDLP. Although the draft
report
indicates that GPO is willing to purchase depository access to other
agencies' fee-based electronic services, there is no assurance that such
information will be available. Availability of the information is entirely
dependent on sufficient appropriations for the program, not on policy
or
principles. Similarly, copyright-like restrictions placed on Government
information are viewed by the associations as a problem for libraries
and
users and affects both short and long term public access.

One area that the associations did not feel was adequately addressed
in
the draft report was the changing role of regional vs. selective
depository libraries. The role of regional depository libraries as seen in
the draft report is diminished, while the role of selective libraries is
expanded. Selective depository libraries will have to be responsible for
access to all Government information. The associations feel that some
selective libraries might not have the ability to provide adequate service
for all Government information products. In regards to
standardization,
the associations feel that this issue should be resolved through ongoing
efforts by agencies, GPO and the information industry to develop basic
criteria to evaluate formats for dissemination.

Ms. Henderson also expressed the associations' concerns that
additional
responsibilities placed on depository libraries for access to electronic
information has the potential to increase the burden on libraries
without
providing any cost benefit to the Government. She pointed out that the
report referred to the cost balance for the current program (in which
depository libraries already carry a disproportionate share) and
cautioned
that changes to the program would have to take this balance into
consideration to prevent further cost shifting to libraries. In closing,
Ms. Henderson noted that in order for the FDLP to work well in an
electronic environment it would need "teeth" and "incentives" for agency
participation and an infrastructure that supported participation by all
three branches of Government.

There were no questions for Ms. Henderson from those present. Ms.
Russell then asked if there were any further comments or questions.

Other Comments

Ms. Jan Fryer, the new chair of the Depository Library Council, was
asked to comment on some of the concerns and issues discussed at the
depository conference. She mentioned the concern about the ability to
view
and download certain types of Government information to an advanced
system
or printer that some libraries may not have the funds to acquire. In
addition, some libraries may only be able to provide a few workstations.
This may mean that public patrons will have to wait to access
information
if terminals are tied up by other patrons. Although the problem has
always
existed -- a patron may be using a book off the shelf that another patron
needs -- the situation might be exacerbated in an electronic
environment.
Finally, she explained that some libraries that provide assistance for
specific types of information, i.e. an agricultural technical library, may
not be able, and should not be expected, to provide "expert" reference
service for the full range of Government information products, but they
can
provide access to that information. Right now some libraries select
CD-ROM
titles that they cannot fully support, but the information is available for
a knowledgeable user to access in the library or by borrowing the
CD-ROM.
The fall DLC meeting will focus on service expectations for selective
depository libraries.

As there were no further comments or questions from the floor, Mr.
Kelley closed the meeting by thanking the speakers and noting that,
although open discussion may never lead to total agreement, at least it
provides an opportunity to see the different perspectives on various
issues. With that, the meeting was adjourned at 3:12 p.m. and those in
attendance were invited to remain for informal discussion.

Attendees

Working Group Members and Staff:

Government Printing Office
Mr. Wayne Kelley, Superintendent of Documents (Chair of Study)
Mr. Bill Guy, Office of Budget
Mr. Jerry Hammond, Congressional Printing Management Division
Ms. Judy Russell, Electronic Information Dissemination Services
Mr. Jay Young, Library Programs Service
Mr. Ric Davis, Electronic Transition Staff
Ms. Maggie Farrell, Electronic Transition Staff
Ms. Wendy Frederick, Documents Technical Support Group

Congress
Mr. George Cartagena, Joint Committee on Printing
Mr. John Chambers, Joint Committee on Printing
Ms. Kennie Gill, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration
Ms. Linda Kemp, Joint Committee on Printing
Mr. David McMillen, House Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight
Mr. David Plocher, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
Ms. Joy Wilson, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Mr. Gary Bowden

Depository Library Community
Ms. Julia Wallace, University of Minnesota

Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service
Ms. Jane Bortnick Griffith, Science Policy Research Division

National Archives and Records Administration
Mr. Tom Brown, Center for Electronic Records
Ms. Fynnette Eaton, Center for Electronic Records
Ms. Anita Pintado, Center for Electronic Records

Office of Management and Budget
Mr. Bruce McConnell, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Mr. Glenn Schlarman, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Advisors and Their Associates:

CENDI
Ms. Elizabeth Buffum, Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and
Technical Information

Depository Library Council/Depository Community
Mr. Dan O'Mahony, Brown University
Ms. Jan Fryer, Iowa State University
Mr. Duncan Aldrich, University of Nevada, Reno

Information Industry Association
Mr. Dan Duncan
Mr. Peyton Neal, PRN Associates
Mr. Eric Massant, Congressional Information Service and
LEXIS/NEXIS
Ms. Alden Schacher

Library Associations
Ms. Prudence Adler, Association of Research Libraries
Ms. Mary Alice Baish, American Association of Law Libraries
Ms. Roxanne Fulcher, Special Libraries Association
Ms. Diane Garner, American Library Association/GODORT
Ms. Anne Heanue, American Library Association
Ms. Carol Henderson, American Library Association
Ms. Lynne Siemers, Medical Library Association

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS)
Ms. Joan Challinor
Mr. Peter Young

Attachment K:

Comments from the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer

Attachment K

Comments from the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer

Statement of April 18, 1996

On April 18, 1996, there was a meeting of the FDLP Study working
group
and advisors in order to provide the advisors with an opportunity to
present their preliminary reactions to the draft Report to Congress.
The
minutes of the meeting are provided as Attachment J. This is the
supplemental statement submitted by the Depository Library Council to
the
Public Printer (DLC).

Statement of Daniel P. O'Mahony, Chair Depository Library Council

On behalf of the Depository Library Council, I would like to thank the
members of the Working Group for this opportunity to provide you
with
direct input and our initial reactions to the Draft Report to Congress.
We're especially grateful for your scheduling this meeting at this time
during the week of the Spring Council Meeting and Federal Depository
Conference when many of us are here in Washington and could meet
with you.

I also want to acknowledge that the report was issued in "draft" form,
and express our appreciation for the opportunity to comment on the
report
at this stage. In addition to our remarks today, the Depository Library
Council will be submitting a more complete written response to the
Draft
Report within the 60-day comment period.

Further, I'd like to commend the Working Group, not only for the
opportunities we've had throughout the study process to provide input,
but
also for your listening to what we've said -- it's obvious that at each
successive step in the process that the comments from the depository
library community have been seriously considered by the Group, and
the
Draft Report reflects that.

I think much of the initial reaction of members of the Depository
Library Council to the Draft Report was quite positive. The report, I
think, reflects the original tone of the Senate report that originally
directed that the study be conducted -- namely, it tries to take
advantage
of new information technologies to enhance and improve public access
to
government information.

As a few people have mentioned already, many of us at this meeting
this
afternoon are, literally, coming directly from the GPO Federal
Depository
Library Conference and Spring Meeting of the Depository Library
Council.
Approximately 600 depository librarians from all over the country
gathered
here in Washington this week for these meetings, and for the better part
of
the past three-and-one-half days, we have been discussing the impact of
this transition on the citizens in our local communities and on our
services for government information.

There is a lot in the Draft Report to Congress that depository
librarians are pleased with -- the following is not a comprehensive list,
but briefly:

--Depository librarians support a time frame that gives our libraries,
our patrons, GPO, and government agencies, a realistic chance for
preparing for and adapting to the transition without major
detriment
to our services for government information;

--The Depository Library Council recommended the adoption of the
Principles of Federal Government Information and the Mission and
Goals for the FDLP, as stated in the Draft Report;

--Depository librarians are excited about the potential for expanding
and enhancing the array of government information available to
the
public, as described in the Draft Report;

--Depository librarians were pleased to see a recognition of the need
for government-wide coordination for making federal information
publicly accessible; and

--Depository librarians agree that changes to Title 44 are necessary to
facilitate the transition and ensure the statutory authority of the
program.

Depository librarians at the conference were also pleased to see that
the report stresses the traditional and ongoing services and value of the
Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), and extends these services
into
the electronic environment -- specifically, identifying and cataloging
government information so people can find it, retaining and preserving
government information so people can continue to have access to it in
the
future, and providing public services for government information that
help
people effectively utilize this information to meet their needs.

Librarians this past week, however, also expressed their concerns that
this transition should support and enhance public access to
government
information, and it should not introduce new technological, financial,
or
other barriers to the public.

Much of the discussion this week focused on the need for coordinated
and
standardized bibliographic access -- providing the public with
information
that enables them to identify and locate electronic publications. In a
decentralized and highly volatile electronic environment, this
cataloging
or locator information is absolutely critical, but it is also much more
complicated to achieve and to maintain. It is imperative that GPO work
closely with agencies from all branches of government to develop
coordinated, coherent, and consistent means for identifying, locating,
and
describing government information for access by the public.

Closely related to this is the concern of ensuring that the public will
be able to get to these electronic publications in the future. And
sometimes that "future" is just a few days or weeks away. Virtually
every
librarian at the conference could relate firsthand to stories about user
frustrations with the Internet -- users from all types of libraries who
were exasperated because they couldn't find files that had changed
locations or disappeared altogether. As agencies' World Wide Web and
other
computer sites evolve and the locations of electronic files are changed,
there needs to be a systematic and coordinated mechanism within the
FDLP to
identify and track these changes. Just as important, there must be an
organized way to ensure that these electronic publications will be
retained
and preserved so that users can have continued and reliable access to
this
information in the future.

Librarians at the conference this week also described the present
limitations of the technical infrastructure and the difficulties users
encounter when trying to use electronic files. A number of librarians
told
various "horror stories" about their experiences in trying to download
large files for patrons. In many cases, people have to spend
unreasonable
amounts of time or perform a complex sequence of steps to access,
obtain,
and format the file(s) for viewing. One librarian on the west coast,
anxious to get a copy of the Draft Report to Congress on the GPO Study,
had
to spend more than three hours downloading, formatting, and printing
the
appropriate files in order to obtain this approximately 150-page report.
[This librarian was not, by the way, from a small, poorly connected and
electronically challenged library, but from a large academic research
university with access to high-end equipment and direct Internet
connections.] Given this experience, librarians are not looking forward
to
the prospect of potentially having to download, for example, a
congressional hearing of several hundred pages or a 1,600 page bill on
health care reform. Day in and day out, some of users' most frustrating
experiences occur when the format that the publication is available in is
not the most appropriate for the content of the information or the use
the
patron or the publishing agency intended for it.

Many of the depository librarians here this week also were very
concerned about restrictions being placed on electronic government
information, such as user or access fees and exclusive or copyright-like
restrictions. Increasingly we see examples -- such as the U.S. Industrial
Outlook, Tide Tables, Foreign Broadcast Information Service reports --
of
information that as it migrates to electronic format becomes less
accessible to the public due to fee-based or other restrictive agreements.

An underlying issue to many of these concerns, obviously, is cost --
costs in terms of access, equipment, staff, support, training, and other
resources -- not only to libraries but to users as well. The Depository
Library Council and depository librarians have serious concerns about
the
costs of a more electronic FDLP, as well as the technical capabilities of
libraries, agencies, and other partners in the program to take advantage
of
new technologies. We strongly support the Technical Implementation
Analysis requested in the Draft Report's Strategic Plan in order to
gather
the critical data that is needed to assist and evaluate the
implementation
of the transition.

So we have a number of concerns about the transition, but depository
librarians are indeed excited about the potential for a more electronic
FDLP for enhancing public access to government information, because,
probably more than most, we understand and appreciate the
tremendous
advantages of some kinds of electronic information. Our cautiousness
is
borne out of our concern of the impact this transition is likely to have
on
the users of government information whom we serve everyday.

On behalf of the Depository Library Council, I would like to again
thank
the members of the Working Group for this opportunity to share with
you our
initial impressions of the Draft Report to Congress, and we look
forward to
continuing the cooperative relationship developed throughout this
study
process, and the opportunities for continued input and communication
as the
transition is implemented. Again, the Depository Library Council will
be
submitting our more detailed written response to the Draft Report to
the
Working Group by the end of May.

Comments of the Depository Library Council Regarding the
Draft Report to Congress
May 30, 1996

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Depository Library Council appreciates the opportunity to
comment on
the Draft Report to Congress as well as our ongoing participation
throughout the study process as a member of the Advisory Group to the
Study
Executive Working Group. The comments below were derived from the
discussions at the Spring 1996 Council meeting in Arlington, VA, and
the
Fall 1995 Council meeting in Memphis, TN. Attached to these
comments are
the Spring 1996 Council recommendations to the Public Printer.

In summary, the Depository Library Council:

-- supports the increased expansion and utilization of electronic
technologies to enhance public access to government information;

-- recommends the adoption of the "Principles of Federal Government
Information" and the "Mission and Goals for the Federal Depository
Library Program," as articulated in the Draft Report;

-- stresses the need for a reasonable time frame (5-7 years) to
successfully implement the transition to a more electronic FDLP;
supports the Technical Implementation Analysis recommended in
the
Draft Report;

-- affirms the need for government-wide coordination of library-
related services through the Superintendent of Documents to
facilitate public access to government information, including
cataloging, preserving, and providing effective public services for
government information in all formats;

-- recommends the development of a strong and comprehensive
support
component (including training, standardized software,
documentation,
etc.) in the FDLP to assist libraries and users in accessing
electronic government information;

-- reaffirms the need for a variety of publication media and the
viability of print as a cost-effective format for disseminating
government information;

-- agrees that changes to U.S.C. Title 44 are necessary to facilitate
the transition, and that new incentives and compliance measures
are
needed to ensure government-wide participation and full access to
government information for the public;

-- supports GPO's request for stable funding in order to effect a
smooth and successful transition to a more electronic FDLP; and

-- urges that the migration to a more electronic FDLP should not erect
new barriers for the public to access government information.

Introduction

On March 29, 1996, the Government Printing Office (GPO) released
the
Draft Report to Congress on the Study to Identify Measures Necessary
for a
Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library
Program. This study was required by Public Law 104-53, Legislative
Branch
Appropriations Act, 1996. This Draft Report was released by GPO in
order
to gather additional feedback and input before issuing the final report.

The Depository Library Council has participated in the study as a
member
organization of the Advisory Group to the Study Executive Working
Group.
Throughout the study process, the Working Group has solicited input
and
encouraged comments from the library community and others. A
number of the
comments offered by the Depository Library Council and other
organizations
already have been incorporated into various parts of the report as well
as
earlier and related documents issued throughout the study process.
The
Council wishes to express its appreciation for the opportunity to
participate in the study process. Further, we commend the Study
Working
Group for including representatives from the depository library
community
on the Working Group and the Advisory Group, and for carefully
considering
the input from the depository library community throughout the study
process.

The comments below of the Depository Library Council were
developed with
input gathered at its Fall 1995 meeting in Memphis, TN (approximately
150
depository librarians in attendance) and its Spring 1996 meeting in
Arlington, VA (approximately 550 depository librarians in attendance).
Attached to these comments are the Spring 1996 recommendations of
Council
to the Public Printer./5/

/5/ The recommendations of the Depository Library Council begin on
page
202.

Response to the GPO Draft Report to Congress

The Draft Report to Congress is a forward-looking and ambitious
outline for the future of the Federal Depository Library Program
(FDLP).
The Draft Report recognizes the ever- increasing use of computer-based
technology to produce, distribute, access, and utilize government
information. The depository library community is excited about the
potential for expanding and enhancing the array of government
information
available to the public.

In the Draft Report, GPO proposes a logical evolution for the
agency's
focus of operations, shifting away from primarily production and
distribution of physical items and moving more toward support
services for
accessing and using electronic information sources. Council supports
the
overall direction of the Draft Report and the important goal of utilizing
electronic technologies to enhance and improve public access to
government
information. Council recommends the adoption of the "Principles of
Federal
Government Information" and the "Mission and Goals for the FDLP," as
stated
in the Draft Report.

The Depository Library Council believes that the timeline for the
transition to a more electronic FDLP must allow users, libraries, and
federal agencies a realistic chance to prepare for and adapt to these new
technologies without major detriment to public access to government
information. Council supports the 5- 7 year initial transition period
outlined in the Draft Report. Further, Council suggests that the
ongoing
transition to a more electronic system of access should be viewed as an
ongoing process rather than a specific objective that can be
accomplished
in a pre-defined period of time. Rapid changes and developments in
information technologies and dynamic user needs and demands will
require a
continuous assessment and evolution of the FDLP in order for the
public and
the program to best take advantage of electronic information. We
recommend
that GPO continue to work with other stakeholders to assess the
capabilities of program partners and their progress toward
implementing and
expanding access to electronic government information. Furthermore,
Council urges Congress to provide adequate and stable funding
throughout
the transition period in order to effect a smooth and successful
migration
to a more electronic FDLP.

Council also believes that the transition to a more electronic system
must be based on objective data in order to accurately determine
cost-effective and feasible alternatives for providing public access to
government information through the FDLP. Council supports the
Technical
Implementation Analysis outlined in the Draft Report and urges GPO to
continue to pursue the means for conducting this analysis.

In the highly decentralized electronic environment, Council believes
that there is an increasing need for a centrally coordinated,
government-wide program to facilitate public access to federal
government
information, and reaffirms the role of the Superintendent of Documents
in
fulfilling this responsibility. One of the strengths of the Draft Report
is its recognition that there is a need for government-wide coordination
of
the library- related activities involved in making information available
to
the public. Council was pleased to see that the Draft Report stresses
the
traditional and ongoing services and value of the FDLP, and extends
these
services into the electronic environment. Specifically, these areas
include identifying and cataloging government information so people
can
find it, retaining and preserving government information so people can
continue to have access to it in the future, and providing public services
for government information that enable people to effectively utilize this
information to meet their needs.

Bibliographic Access

Council supports GPO's continued commitment to providing
coordinated
bibliographic access to federal information and encourages GPO to take
a
leadership role in developing effective strategies for cataloging
electronic sources of government information. Libraries and users rely
upon GPO's cataloging records to identify and locate government
publications, and this need will only increase in a dynamic electronic
environment. Standardized records that describe the information
content
and that direct users to corresponding print and electronic versions of
the
information are most desirable.

Council is particularly concerned about retaining bibliographic
access
to the historical record as electronic information sources are moved to
new
locations or transferred to different agencies (e.g., NARA). Without
ongoing and coordinated procedures for ensuring bibliographic control,
the
location and very existence of specific sources may be lost, and thus the
information under-utilized, resulting in a waste of taxpayers' money
and an
increase in public frustration in locating government information.
Council
also sees the necessity for maintaining a system of uniquely identifying
each electronic resource (i.e., the Superintendent of Documents
Classification System). Since online locations (i.e., Universal Resource
Locators or URLs) can change frequently, it is desirable to have a
unique
identifier, similar to an ISBN (International Standard Book Number) or
ISSN
(International Standard Serial Number) in order to verify and track an
information resource.

Council encourages GPO to take a leadership role in working with
the
library and federal publishing communities to develop standardized
cataloging policies and practices that address these issues. It is
imperative that GPO work closely with agencies from all branches of
government to develop coordinated, coherent, and consistent means for
identifying, locating, and describing government information for access
by
the public. Council is concerned because, although the Draft Report
recognizes the value of the FDLP as a central coordinating agency, a
legislative proposal advanced by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)
does not address the issue of how the cataloging function would be
achieved
without GPO's presence in the publication/dissemination loop. We
recommend
that GPO seek common ground with OMB in order to ensure that
federal
information policies and practices provide for this important service.

Retention, Preservation, and Long-term Access

The public's needs for government information are diverse and
oftentimes require the identification and use of historical information.
This need traditionally has been met by the historical collections
maintained in geographically-dispersed depository libraries. Council
strongly believes that the public's long-term ability to access
government
information must be maintained throughout the migration to electronic
formats, and that the necessary legislative and administrative
safeguards
must be established to ensure the preservation and long-term access to
electronic government information.

Government-wide policies and procedures must be developed that
systematically identify and retain electronic government publications
for
continued access and use by the public. Current publishing practices
via
the Internet are inconsistent and unstable as information appears and
disappears seemingly at whim. Users' frustrations in accessing
electronic
information are exacerbated by frequently changing Internet addresses.
Moreover, information is lost as agencies update or replace files with
subsequent or the most current data. Coordinated, government- wide
mechanisms are necessary to ensure that electronic government
information
is retained and preserved for ongoing public access and use. Further,
the
federal government must investigate ways to secure the integrity of the
information published electronically so that users can be assured of the
accuracy and reliability of the data.

It is vital that procedures be established to guarantee the permanent
availability of important public information in usable electronic
formats.
Currently, many of these files are referred to the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA) for permanent retention. However,
NARA does
not retain electronic information for which there is no source
documentation. Furthermore, NARA converts information data files to
the
lowest common source format, such and ASCII, and NARA does not
retain
distinct software interfaces for electronic databases. This oftentimes
renders these files unusable and virtually worthless to researchers in
the
future. Polices and procedures need to be developed through a
concerted
effort with NARA to guarantee that electronic government information
remains readily accessible and usable to the public.

Council applauds GPO's recognition of the responsibility of the
federal government to preserve and provide long-term access to
electronic
government information. Council is concerned, however, that the loss
of
redundant sites for housing and servicing government information
sources
will impair both long- term and current public access to these sources.
One of the proven strengths of the FDLP has been its success in
ensuring
long-term access to government publications for the public at large
through
its Regional system of geographically-dispersed libraries. This
cooperative system guarantees that adequate copies of government
publications will be available for future users. Since these collections
reside in and are serviced by various libraries of all types, they are less
susceptible to the possible vicissitudes in political or budgetary support
of any single authority, as well as the numerous natural and physical
disasters that can strike anywhere. In the electronic environment, a
similar system of "mirror" or remote sites will be required to ensure
continued, flexible, and reliable access to electronic government
information. The federal government furloughs of Fall 1995 are an
excellent example of how single or exclusive sources of electronic
information can unexpectedly shut down and leave users cut off from
important government information. Council encourages GPO to
explore
partnerships or cooperative agreements with libraries, federal and state
agencies, regional networks and consortia, research institutions, and
other
public service providers, to preserve and ensure long- term, no-fee
public
access to electronic government information. In addition, Council
believes
that the wide distribution of physical electronic products (e.g.,
CD-ROMs)
enhances current and future public access by providing libraries and
users
with local access to electronic government information sources.

Service to the Public

Federal depository libraries have worked in partnership with GPO
and
federal agencies for over a century to provide the public with no-fee
access to government information in all formats. No other sector of the
information landscape is set up to deal with the nation's government
information needs at the local community level. While each federal
agency
has its own specific constituency that it serves, generally these groups
are very narrowly focused, and most times the agency is able to supply
only
the most current data or information. The FDLP is the primary means
for
the general public to gain no-fee access to all types of government
information.

The transition to a more electronic FDLP will require libraries to
assume new roles in this partnership and reallocate local resources in
order to deliver effective services to the public. The time frame for this
transition must allow libraries sufficient preparation time for planning,
acquiring and installing equipment, training staff, and developing
services
for a predominantly electronic environment.

Depository libraries and federal publishing agencies have made
tremendous strides in recent years to make electronic government
information accessible to the public at large. Nonetheless, the
necessary
technical infrastructure is not yet in place to reliably and consistently
support a predominantly electronic FDLP. Users continue to face
technical
limitations in using the Internet and experience a variety of difficulties
when trying to access and use electronic files. In many cases, people
have
had to spend unreasonable amounts of time to perform complex
sequences of
tasks in order to access, download, and format a file simply to be able
to
view the information.

As GPO plans for a more electronic FDLP, it is imperative that it
develop a comprehensive and reliable support infrastructure to assist
users
and libraries in accessing and utilizing electronic government
information.
This should include providing training for librarians and users;
supplying
well- conceived online and off-line tutorials; facilitating the
development
of standardized software applications and user interfaces; developing
logical and well-organized documentation and user guides; and
coordinating
other services that facilitate the use of electronic government
information
products.

This transition will have a significant financial impact on depository
libraries. Council shares the concern of depository librarians that
additional costs to libraries and users associated with managing,
accessing, retrieving, downloading, and printing electronic information
will hinder public access. Again, Council recommends that a
system-wide
cost analysis of the effects of electronic dissemination, and a survey of
the technological capabilities of all program partners (agencies,
libraries, and the public), are essential in order to gather the
fundamental data necessary for planning and implementing a
successful
transition to a more electronic FDLP.

It is imperative that, throughout the transition and implementation
of
any new system, the public retain no-fee access to government
information
in all formats through the network of depository libraries. Council
supports the legislative proposals in the Draft Report, as well as any
resulting inter-agency agreements, that uphold and facilitate no-fee
public
access by providing electronic government information at no charge to
depository libraries. The primary objective should continue to be to
improve public access to government information in ways that are
meaningful
and equitable for users and economical and cost-efficient for taxpayers
and
the system.

Appropriate Formats and the Viability of Print

Council is pleased that the Draft Report recognizes the ongoing need
for a variety of publication formats, including paper, in order to meet
the
government information needs of the public. Simply stated, not all
information is appropriate for electronic format only. Council firmly
believes that the distribution format for information products must be
appropriate to the information's content, use, and intended audience.

Council is concerned about the effective cost-shift to users created
by a predominantly electronic system. The format preferred by users
for
communicating textual information continues to be print on paper.
Information having important historical value, publications meant to
be
read in their entirety or in context (like most books or journals or
congressional hearings), and publications with a significant amount of
graphic or photo images, are all excellent candidates for print. For
these
materials, centralized printing and distribution remains the most
efficient
and cost-effective model for the system, for libraries, for the
environment, and for users. A dramatic shift to electronic-only
dissemination would likely limit public access to only those with the
ability to pay for printing, copying, or buying government publications.

Program Compliance

Council is concerned about the increasing instances of restrictions
placed on government information that inhibit public access. A number
of
factors -- including conflicting legislative directives and cost-recovery
mandates, publishing contracts that circumvent the FDLP, exclusive
agreements that provide copyright- like restrictions, inadequate
appropriations for public information dissemination, and growing
pressures
to generate revenues from information products -- work to effectively
deny
the public access to government information.

When government information falls outside the FDLP, it becomes
much
more difficult for the public to find it, to access it, and to use it.
There is no guarantee that the information will be cataloged or
preserved,
and fees and other barriers may further restrict public access and limit
its usefulness. Council supports in concept the definitions and
statutory
changes to U.S.C. Title 44 proposed in Task 6 of the Draft Report
(Attachment D-5: Evaluation of Current Laws Governing the FDLP and
Recommendation of Legislative Changes). Moreover, Council urges
GPO to
work with Congress, OMB, and federal publishing agencies to develop
positive incentives and effective enforcement measures to ensure public
access to government information through the FDLP.

Conclusion

The Depository Library Council and the depository library
community
have long advocated increased access to and utilization of government
information in electronic format. Depository librarians are excited
about
the potential for a more electronic FDLP for enhancing public access to
government information because, probably more than most, they
understand
and appreciate the tremendous advantages of electronic technologies.
As
Congress, GPO, federal agencies, libraries, and users plan for a more
electronic system for accessing government information, we should
build
upon the many strengths and successes of the FDLP, and we must be
careful
not to introduce new technological, financial, or other barriers that
restrict public access to government information.

Daniel P. O'Mahony Government Documents Coordinator Brown
University
Library - Box A Providence, RI 02912

[Recommendations from the Spring 1996 meeting of the Depository
Library
Council are included below.]

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE
DEPOSITORY LIBRARY COUNCIL TO THE PUBLIC PRINTER
Spring 1996

Submitted May 24, 1996

GPO STUDY ISSUES

1. Council commends the Government Printing Office for completing
the
Congressionally directed Study to Identify Measures for a Successful
Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program, for
including representatives from the library community on the Study
Executive
Working Group and Advisory Group, and for carefully considering the
input
of depository libraries throughout the study process.

2. Council supports the "Principles for Federal Government
Information"
and the "Missions and Goals for the FDLP," as stated in the draft Report
to
Congress, and Council recommends the adoption of these statements
for the
FDLP.

3. Council commends GPO for adopting a five-year time frame for the
initial transition to a more electronic FDLP, and recommends that GPO
continue to work with the library community, federal agencies, and
other
appropriate parties, to assess the capabilities of program partners, and
their progress towards implementing and expanding access to electronic
government information.

4. Council recommends that the Public Printer seek common ground
with the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on federal policy that would
achieve
an appropriate degree of government-wide coherence in public
information as
has traditionally been accomplished through centralized cataloging.

RATIONALE: Given the huge volume and diversity of information
produced
and/or disseminated by the federal government, descriptive cataloging
which
continues to allow libraries and other information providers to
incorporate
electronic resources into existing location mechanisms is of
fundamental
importance for public access. This is an even greater imperative as
more
information moves toward intangible electronic products. Yet, it does
not
seem that the OMB legislative proposal specifically addresses how the
cataloging function would be achieved without GPO in the publishing
loop.
Council is hopeful that a constructive discussion with OMB on this
specific
topic of cataloging would provide important insights on all sides of the
issue.

5. Council commends GPO for its aggressive and creative proposals for
expanding access to government information and providing access to
previously fugitive government information.

6. Council supports the Technical Implementation Analysis outlined in
the
draft Report to Congress and urges GPO to continue to pursue the
means for
conducting this analysis.

RATIONALE: Council remains concerned that the transition to a more
electronic Federal Depository Library Program continues to proceed
without
fundamental data necessary to determine the most cost-effective and
feasible alternatives for providing access to electronic government
information to the public through the FDLP. Data is needed for
analysis:
from publishers in all three branches of government to determine their
expected current and long-term electronic publishing plans; and from
depository libraries to determine their present and near-term
technological
capabilities, including equipment, skills of staff, and electronic
technologies best suited to meet user needs. Data is also needed to
address issues raised in the Technical Implementation Assistance
(Appendix
A) section of the draft Report to Congress.

REVISION OF U.S.C. TITLE 44

1. Council supports in concept the definitions of government
information,
government information product, and government electronic
information
services as articulated in the draft Report to Congress. Council
recommends that GPO continue to work with Congress and the library
community to identify and recommend legislative changes necessary for
a
successful transition to a more electronic FDLP.

RATIONALE: The definitions make useful distinctions which should be
incorporated in revisions to Title 44 of the United States Code. They
are
not technology-specific and will permit the statutory definitions to
continue to provide direction even as technological changes occur in
information formats. GPO has the experience, broad perspective, and
involvement with the user community that are essential for productive
revision of Title 44 to ensure effective access to government
information.

2. Council affirms the role of the Superintendent of Documents in the
government-wide coordination of public access to government
information,
including the preservation, retention, and long-term access of
government
information, as articulated in the draft Report to the Congress.

RATIONALE: Historically, GPO has provided the central coordinating
authority for distribution of print products and has recently moved into
a
new role as a provider of online information services. The
Superintendent
of Documents (SOD) has a proven history of strong and effective
involvement
with its user community. The SOD has provided bibliographic access
and a
mechanism for long-term access to federal government information for
more
than one-hundred years. No other federal agency has the experience
and
commitment to broad public access that the SOD can provide.
Throughout
this period of rapid transition and changing technologies, the guidance
and
assistance of the Superintendent of Documents is critical in order to
meet
the challenge of maintaining public access to government information.

APPROPRIATE FORMATS

1. Council commends GPO for a timely test of the accuracy, feasibility,
and cost implications of scanning paper publications for electronic
dissemination to depositories. The depository library community is
concerned about GPO's conclusion that graphic-intensive publications
of
less that thirty pages in length are candidates for electronic conversion.
Council notes that these publications are often intended for public
dissemination for informational purposes by the agency. These titles
may
not be suitable for their intended audience in electronic format and may
present printing problems for depository libraries and users.

2. Council reaffirms the principle that paper is a viable format for
disseminating government information. When choosing publications
for
scanning, Council reminds GPO that a basic assumption stated in the
Strategic Plan is that paper and microfiche will continue to be
distributed
when appropriate for user needs.

RATIONALE: Council remains concerned that, while GPO and the other
participants of the study process have formally recognized the
importance
of paper as an appropriate format, the short term economic benefit of
electronic conversion will overshadow this principle. Council, as an
advisory body to the Public Printer, wishes to keep the issue of
appropriate information media squarely before GPO, and recommends
that this
principle be reinforced during any deliberations and plans regarding
dissemination formats.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC ACCESS ISSUES

1. Council applauds the efforts of the Electronic Transition Team and
the
Cataloging Branch to develop diverse and creative approaches toward
providing bibliographic access to government information in electronic
formats. However, Council recommends that GPO provide a
mechanism that
will search these multiple directories simultaneously. Alternatively,
Council suggests merging the files of the Pathway List of Titles and the
Bibliographic Records Project so that those items residing at GPO sites
will be searched along with those items residing at other federal
government agency sites.

RATIONALE: Council sees significant advantages in providing for such
simultaneous searching capabilities. As the amount of government
information on the Internet increases, it will be increasingly difficult to
track or separate, for searching purposes, information residing at GPO
sites and government information residing elsewhere. There are
potential
advantages for GPO in this approach as well. Since the Pathway List of
Titles and the Bibliographic Records Project both provide title- level
access to electronic government information products, the efforts
directed
toward the two projects could be consolidated to create one unified title
index.

2. Council recommends that GPO develop and incorporate, within its
suite
of Pathway Government Electronic Products, records that communicate
"continues" and "continued by" notes, as well as previous format
statements. Council further recommends that depository libraries be
notified when print/microfiche titles are replaced by electronic,
Internet-accessible titles.

RATIONALE: In this very dynamic environment of electronic
government
information, it is essential that records contain sufficient information
for depository librarians to provide accurate and efficient service. This
includes, but is not limited to, being able to tell a patron that prior to
this date this title was distributed to depository libraries in paper/fiche
or after this date this title was made available via the Internet at this
URL (universal resource locator). Communication of this information
is
also necessary so that similar notations may be made in local shelflists
and/or OPAC (online public access catalog) entries.

3. Council supports the Library Program Service (LPS) proposal that a
Superintendent of Documents (SuDocs) classification stem and an
accession
number be assigned to each government information product accessible
via
GPO Access to partially serve as a unique locator.

RATIONALE: Provision of a classification number with a SuDocs stem
represents a transitional middle ground which will assist depository
librarians to relate Internet sources to previously printed information
and
help to identify the provenance of electronic publications. It is
anticipated that in the future this program may be superseded by other
programs, such as the Persistent Uniform Resource Locator (PURL) that
is
under development internationally.

RETENTION, PRESERVATION, AND LONG-TERM ACCESS ISSUES

1. Council affirms that the federal government has the responsibility to
ensure that government information is preserved. All government
information made available to the public through GPO Access, as well
as
information at federal agency sites to which the public is directed by
GPO
Pathways, should be considered federal depository information and
should be
preserved in perpetuity unless determined otherwise by the
Superintendent
of Documents.

RATIONALE: In the increasingly decentralized electronic environment
within
the federal government, it has become increasingly difficult to ensure
that
all government information is identified and becomes a candidate for
retention, access, and preservation. Consequently, a centralized
coordinating authority such as the Superintendent of Documents is
more
necessary than ever. In the absence of a central authority that
identifies
government information worthy of retention, much valuable
information may
be lost forever.

2. Council recommends that the Public Printer coordinate with the
National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to develop plans for
preserving
material and to determine the categories of material that NARA will
maintain.

RATIONALE: NARA's current practices and policies probably would not
ensure
that all important public information in electronic formats would be
preserved for posterity. For instance, NARA does not currently retain
electronic information for which there is no source documentation.
Further, NARA converts information to the lowest common source
format, such
as ASCII, and does not retain distinct software interfaces for databases.
Council recommends that GPO, in discussion with NARA, adopt the
principle
that information retired to NARA will, insofar as possible, be as
accessible as before it was retired; in other word, the information
should
be complete, searchable, and available when it is needed by the user.
For
electronic information that NARA will not be maintaining, or for
information to which NARA cannot ensure adequate access, GPO and
the
depository library community should look for other partners willing to
maintain access to the information.

3. In providing guidance on partnerships between libraries and other
non-governmental entities (as recommended by Council in Fall 1995),
GPO
should stress the importance of providing for long-term access and
identifying responsibilities for archiving data.

RATIONALE: Council recognizes the number of partnerships being
formed
between depository libraries and federal agencies for accessing
electronic
information. Council views these arrangements as a positive trend in
the
transition to an electronic depository library system. Increasing the
number of sites housing electronic government information can help
ensure
long-term access. However, Council believes LPS should develop model
agreements which libraries can use in negotiating with federal agencies.
The model agreements will help ensure that libraries and agencies
consider
minimum standards for technical and service issues including archiving
data
for long-term access. In addition, model agreements will allow LPS to
serve as a central source for information on electronic partnerships for
federal government information.

TRAINING AND COMMUNICATIONS ISSUES

1. Council recommends that GPO offer a training component at the Fall
Depository Library Council Meeting in Salt Lake City. Council offers its
assistance with planning and, as appropriate, providing some of the
training.

RATIONALE: Training continues to be eagerly sought by government
information specialists. The success of the recent Spring Conference is
ample testimony to this fact. In its Strategic Plan, FY 1996 - FY 2001,
GPO identified training as one of several support services it should
provide to libraries and librarians (p. 11). Council recognizes that the
training sessions at the Fall meeting probably cannot be as elaborate as
those provided at the Spring Conference, however, with the addition of
an
extra half day to the schedule to accommodate Council's need for
daytime
work sessions, extra time could also be devoted to training. Council
believes that with creative planning the costs of providing training
sessions could be minimized. Providing such opportunities for
professional
growth would also enhance GPO's image within the depository library
community.

2. Council encourages the GPO staff involved in writing documentation
for
electronic products to work with gateway libraries and other interested
librarians (i.e. technical support personnel) to create user-friendly
documentation. Council is pleased to offer its assistance in the
organization of such a group which would develop a mechanism for
facilitating coordination and communication between those individuals
involved with writing user-friendly documentation and others who
would
advise them.

RATIONALE: Council is mindful of the dedication and effort that the
GPO
staff exert in the writing of documentation for electronic information
products. We believe that with greater involvement from the user
community, the task would be less burdensome for GPO and provide an
increased amount of user- friendly documentation.

3. Council recommends that GPO establish an official mechanism that
enables them to communicate electronically with depository libraries.

RATIONALE: This "official" communications channel should have the
capability to enable GPO to disseminate official, system-wide
communications as well as receive information from the depository
libraries. Types of communication activity should include (but not be
limited to) conducting surveys in a timely manner, posting
Administrative
Notes and other information tools, initiating claims, disseminating
news
releases and announcements, etc. This mechanism is not intended to be
used
as a discussion forum.

GPO OPERATIONAL AND TECHNICAL ISSUES

1. Council recommends that GPO set as a high priority supplying GPO
cataloging personnel with adequate computer equipment, Internet
accessibility, and appropriate software so that they can carry out their
responsibilities.

RATIONALE: As the central coordinating authority for bibliographic
access
to electronic federal government information, it is imperative that GPO
staff have the necessary technical infrastructure, equipment, and
support
in place in order to identify, catalog, and monitor government Internet
sources and provide necessary bibliographic access to these sources for
libraries and users.

2. Council recommends that GPO take full advantage of its world wide
web
site to provide the broadest access to information about the Federal
Depository Library Program and databases and resources such as the
Publications Reference File (PRF).

3. Council recommends that GPO invest in Universal Resource Locator
(URL)
verification software.

RATIONALE: The present world wide web URL technology is not
designed to
have any reliable amount of persistence. Consequently, a significant
portion of the information referenced with URLs becomes lost on a
weekly
basis. The URL verification software cannot fix broken URLs, but it can
at
least demonstrate which URLs seem to have become obsolete at the
time the
URL verification was attempted. These URLs might then be considered
for
elimination or re-location to the new URL.

Daniel P. O'Mahony
Government Documents Coordinator
Brown University Library - Box A
Providence, RI 02912

Attachment L:

Comments from the Information Industry Association

Attachment L

Information Industry Association Comments in Response to:

The Government Printing Office's
Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition
to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program

Submitted May 24, 1996

The Information Industry Association ("IIA") submits the following
comments in response to the Government Printing Office's (GPO) Study
to
Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More
Electronic Federal Depository Library Program.

IIA is aware that other similar studies and some legislative proposals
contemplate electronic dissemination of federal government
information by
legislative or executive agencies other than GPO. Our comments in no
way
should imply that we either support or reject GPO's approach or that we
will not consider other options as they are forwarded. Further, our
general comments below -- especially those relating to information
dissemination principles -- would apply to any agency, or any entity
"standing in the shoes" of an agency, which is distributing federal
government information to the public.

Information Industry Association

IIA is the trade association of leading companies involved in the
creation, distribution and use of information products, services and
technologies. Our 550 corporate members range from large
multinationals to
entrepreneurial start-ups, and include traditional and electronic
publishers, database producers and providers, interactive electronic
services (audio and video), computer manufacturers, software
developers,
financial information services, and telecommunications providers.

Since IIA's founding in 1968, sound government information
dissemination policy has been one of our paramount public policy
goals.
IIA has been active in helping formulate policies that both support the
government's affirmative obligation to provide information that it
maintains and sustain the ability of citizens to obtain information by
and
about their government from non-governmental providers, including
private
sector re-disseminators. Over the years, IIA has been an active
participant in discussions with the Government Printing Office (GPO)
regarding its information dissemination programs and policies, and we
are
currently serving as one of the designated advisors to this Study.

IIA member companies develop and distribute innovative
information
products and services to meet the information needs of American
academics,
businesses, professionals, researchers, and the general public. Many of
these products and services are based on, or include, information
originating in the federal government -- including Congress.

Our member companies add value to this information in a variety of
ways: by assembling and editing government information; by arranging
and
organizing it in useful ways; by combining it with information from
other
sources; by adding indexing, cross-referencing and annotating; and by
updating and expanding databases to make sure that they are
comprehensive,
timely and accurate. Information companies then distribute these
value-added products to the public in convenient, useful and
user-friendly
formats -- including hard copy, microform, and a range of electronic
dissemination media -- and provide ongoing customer service (often
comprehensive, round-the-clock customer support) to make sure that
the
customer's information needs are being satisfied to the greatest extent
possible. In fact, many members of Congress, the executive branch, the
courts and their staffs rely on information developed and maintained
by the
private sector. In short, a mature, value-added information industry
has
developed around the rich and diverse resource of federal government
information and continues to serve the needs of a large portion of the
American public.

General Interest of the Information Industry Association

IIA commends Congress for requiring and GPO for carrying out this
Study which documents many of the practical and policy considerations
necessary for the transition to an electronic Federal Depository Library
Program (FDLP). As experts in the dissemination of information to the
public, we recognize that there are many complex issues with which to
grapple, and that it is a very difficult process to reformulate delivery of
government information services for the digital age. Thus, as the
transition occurs, we believe it is critical that Congress and GPO
continue
to reach out to the public and private sector users of GPO information
for
advise and comment. In general, IIA believes GPO has done a good job
of
pinpointing the needs of the library community and balancing those
needs
with limited budgetary resources.

In addition, IIA supports the underlying goals of the Congress and of
GPO in its Study efforts, namely to improve the dissemination of
federal
government information, and to improve and streamline the operations
of the
legislative branch. Further, we remain supportive of a Federal
Depository
Library Program designed to provide access to government information
to
those citizens who have neither the desire nor the means to inform
themselves about government in other ways. We do not support,
however, and
are concerned by the premise of the Study that GPO should try to be all
things to all people. Rather, in our view, the goals outlined in the Study
can best be met by a partnership among a range of public and private
sector
institutions, including the information industry, the education and
library
communities, and all parts of the federal government.

While the GPO Study focuses very specifically on dissemination of
federal agency and congressional information to the FDLP, policies
established by the Study and the forthcoming recommendations for
legislative changes to Title 44 could ultimately set important precedents
for general dissemination by the federal government beyond the FDLP.
These
policies in turn, could affect how information companies access and
disseminate information to their customers, who are also members of
the
public. In addition, private sector information companies and their
users
rely on GPO for access to both federal agency and congressional
information
through GPO sales program and GPO Access system, and policies
recommended
in this Study could also affect that access.

Over the years, GPO has been a consistent and reliable source of the
information it provides. This consistency can be attributed to the fact
that, by and large, GPO has disseminated the information it maintains
under
responsible policy guidelines similar to those mandated for federal
agencies by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (hereinafter P.L.
104-13). We are pleased to note that in the Study, GPO mentions P.L.
104-13, and reiterates some of the important information dissemination
principles mandated by the law. GPO's current dissemination practices
and
its restatement of support for the mandates of the law reinforces the
idea
that the private sector plays a critical role in ensuring that more
government information gets into the hands of more citizens in ways
that
are most useful to them. However, we believe it is important to do more
than simply state support for the principles contained in P.L. 104-13,
we
advocate that GPO or any other legislative branch information
disseminator
be required to adhere to the information policies outlined in P.L.
104-13
by adopting a statutory requirement. The primary issue of interest for
the
information industry is insuring that open and unfettered access to the
information remain intact so that we can continue to deliver the world's
most comprehensive, timely and informative knowledge products to the
American public.

With regard to transition by GPO to an electronic FDLP and the
dissemination of executive branch information, P.L. 104-13 assures
that
executive agencies in a decentralized system abide by a set of principles
for dissemination. However, no such principles currently apply to the
legislative or judicial branches. To ensure a wide variety of information
disseminators and to foster private sector investment and innovation in
information products, we suggest that as Title 44 legislative changes are
considered, a requirement be added that legislative branch agencies
also
abide by the principles contained in P.L. 104-13. Specifically, those
principles include:

Seeking timely public input and responding to concerns prior to
initiating,
discontinuing, or modifying any information products or services;

Promoting a diversity of sources and ensuring that no one gains an
exclusive right to the information. (Legislative Branch Agencies should
be
required to give all members of the public, including private sector
re-disseminators, equal and timely access to all taxpayer-funded
materials
-- specifically the underlying agency data -- at no more than the cost of
dissemination); and

Refraining from placing copyright-like controls on the materials such
as:
granting exclusive contracts; charging royalties; or placing downstream
use
restrictions on the information.

Adoption of legislative mandates similar to those in P.L. 104-13 is
one thing. Equally important is compliance with the law, and IIA would
urge the drafters of Title 44 reforms also formulate strong measures to
assure that legislative branch agencies adhere to statutory mandates
once
they are enacted. This has not always been the case with executive
branch
agency compliance with P.L. 104-13.

Since October of last year, several executive branch agencies have
instituted policies, products and services which ignore the information
dissemination mandates of the law. As mentioned above, requiring
adherence
to these types of dissemination policies is crucial if the federal
government is to ensure that information will continue to be made
available
as the FDLP and the agencies transition to a decentralized electronic
environment.

Issues of Concern/Interest Contained in the Study

With regard to the Study, we have both general concerns and specific
concerns. Generally, the Study suggests that GPO's role of duplicator
and
disseminator of federal government information be dramatically
redefined to
that of publisher. Throughout the Study, this type of approach suggests
that GPO is trying to be all things to all the users -- actual and
potential -- of government information that comes through GPO.

The difference between the two types of roles -- disseminator versus
publisher -- is critically important. GPO has been and continues to be
the
sole source for some federal government information.

Because GPO is the only source, it is crucial that the integrity of the
information be preserved. This preservation could be jeopardized
should
GPO begin making editorial decisions about the federal government
information it disseminates.

Specifically, the Study is replete with references to the notion that
government information should be standardized and the FDLP should
be the
catalyst for this standardization. If agencies don't choose the standard
formats GPO determines are useful, GPO could then convert agency
publications to one that GPO finds acceptable. We believe decisions
about
information creation, including formatting, is solely the responsibility
of
the originating agencies and should be based on the statutory authority
and
legitimate needs of agencies. All editorial control belongs with the
originating agencies. GPO, on the other hand, is a printer,
manufacturer,
sales agent and distributor for government publications, but not a
publisher. It does not now, never has in the past, and never should in
the
future exercise editorial control over government publications. In
addition, GPO's belief that standardization of government information
will
aid the private sector is ill-founded. While some benefit may accrue, it
is more likely that additional formatting by GPO will increase costs for
information companies and their customers. Therefore, it is much more
important for industry to have access to the underlying data.

Providing "information in formats appropriate to the needs of users
and intended usage," as is suggested goal number three of the Study, is a
significant part of what private sector information companies already
do.
While GPO is an important source of information to the FDLP, many of
the
depository libraries also purchase private sector products which help
them
tailor their information acquisition needs to their specific users or
markets. Goal three implies that GPO would transform agency
information
products into new products or services designed to meet the many
varying
needs of the numerous users of GPO information. This would place
GPO in a
publishing role attempting to compete directly with the private sector
information providers and would divert GPO -- and its limited
resources --
from the focus on dissemination of basic electronic government
information.

To avoid such a situation and ensure the widest possible diversity of
sources of government information, we stress again the importance of
requiring that GPO and other legislative branch agencies be held to the
same information dissemination standards as are set out in P.L.
104-13.
Especially important in this context is the notion that the authentic
underlying agency data be provided to any and all users on an equal
and
timely basis and that it be provided at no more than the cost of
dissemination.

These provisions are also important to ensure that agencies do not
obtain a competitive advantage over private sector information
companies.
The statutory tenets in P.L. 104-13 recognize that identifying other
products and services in the marketplace helps agencies avoid
undermining
the existing diversity of information sources minimizes unnecessary
competition with the private sector. The legislative history of P.L.
104-13 is replete with supporting references to this idea. The House
Committee Report, for example, states that agencies should "encourage
a
diversity of providers in the private and public sectors, while avoiding
unnecessary duplication of effort" and should "also take advantage of
(and
not unnecessarily duplicate) private sector initiatives that may more
efficiently or effectively serve the same ends."

The Study also includes a list of goals for the FDLP some of which
raise concern. Part of goal II is; "to expand the array of Federal
information products and services made available through the FDLP."
Again,
in an environment of shrinking budgets we question the wisdom of
expanding
products or services which may duplicate other current or future
products
in the market. Here we emphasize that there is a significant difference
between improving access to information and trying to anticipate the
needs
of all users.

In addition, it is important to note that libraries are currently
overwhelmed with the storage and maintenance requirements
associated with
the information they receive through the FDLP. Rather than looking at
ways
to expand products and services made available by GPO, the FDLP
might be
better served by being given the flexibility to use moneys appropriated
by
Congress to purchase government information products and services
from
whomever they choose.

The GPO Study also raises some important policy issues which will
have
far broader implications for dissemination of, and access to, federal
government information than those associated with dissemination to
the
FDLP. For instance; Issue 1. (A) addresses the definition and scope of
what constitutes a government publication, and (B) the necessity of
finding
means to "assure the authenticity of Government information in the
FDLP."
We agree citizens need to know which electronic publications federal
agencies release are "official" documents and federal agencies need to
provide the means to address this issue in the electronic environment.
We
also recognize that Title 44 needs to provide flexibility to allow
electronic publications to be considered official publications.

However, when addressing issues such as authentication of
government
information, and the scope of information to be included in the FDLP,
the
government should assure that it does not raise unnecessary barriers to
further use of the information, which will have a chilling affect on
private industry and ultimately reduce access by those in the public
who
are our customers.

Finally, the Study raises and even acknowledges that converting to a
fully electronic dissemination system does not necessarily save money
for
GPO or for the users of the FDLP -- the depository libraries. We
recognize
that the Study contains a recommendation that mirrors a proposal
before
Congress to provide federal taxpayer dollars to aid the depository
libraries in improving technology and training for accessing electronic
information. IIA does not object to this request. We believe that the
decision should be left to Congress.

However, if the goal is to serve the depository library users in
better, more efficient and economic ways, and Congress determines that
funding should be allocated for this purpose, IIA would recommend
that
consideration be given to allowing libraries to determine how best to
spend
these funds. By providing flexibility in funding, libraries will be given
the opportunity to determine if the funds would best be spent on
technology
improvements, or on training, or possibly to purchase private sector
products that meet each individual library's and its specific user needs.

Furthermore, should Congress support this funding, IIA does have
an
important concern. Because this technology would ultimately be used
for
accessing non-governmental, proprietary information, we would suggest
that
any money granted for training purposes require that this training -- by
whomever administers it -- adequately inform all library patrons about
the
importance of respecting intellectual property in electronic formats.

Conclusion

As the legislative, executive and judicial branches move toward
electronic dissemination of the public information they create, there are
and will continue to be many thought-provoking and challenging issues
with
which to grapple. We support both Congress and GPO in efforts thus
far to
move the FDLP into the world of digital, electronic dissemination and
believe that many important issues have been raised and good
recommendations made. Now is the proper time for the evaluation of
GPO and
the FDLP roles in this transition.

While trying to craft solutions to these complex issues, it is crucial
that these decisions be made with the clear understanding that they can
and
will have implications for a broad segment of society including
individual
citizens, libraries, non-profits -- as well as the information industry and
its customers. In order to assure that the United States continues to
foster the most open, democratic society and the most successful,
productive information industry in the world, it is imperative that
governmental and judicial entities adhere to the information policies
such
as those contained in P.L. 104-13.

Attachment M:

Comments from the Library Associations

Attachment M

Comments from the Library Associations

On April 18, 1996, there was a meeting of the FDLP Study working
group
and advisors in order to provide the advisors with an opportunity to
present their preliminary reactions to the draft report to Congress. The
minutes of the meeting are provided as Attachment J. This attachment
includes the supplemental statement submitted by the library
association
advisors as a letter to the Public Printer, dated April 24, 1996.

A second letter was submitted on May 24, 1996, providing additional
comments on the FDLP Study, including a number of enclosures with
respect
to specific task force reports. Both letters were submitted on behalf of
the following associations:

American Association of Law Libraries (AALL)

American Library Association (ALA), including the ALA Government
Documents Roundtable (GODORT)

Association of Research Libraries (ARL)

Special Libraries Association (SLA)

The Medical Library Association (MLA) also participated as an
advisor
to the FDLP Study, but did not join in these comments.

April 26, 1996

Michael F. DiMario
Public Printer
U.S. Government Printing Office
732 N. Capitol Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20401

Dear Mr. DiMario:

Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the recently released
Report to the Congress: Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a
Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library
Program. We are responding to your request to submit written
comments
based on the oral remarks delivered at last week's joint meeting between
members of the Working Group and the Advisors. Our comments today
reflect
the views of the members of the American Association of Law Libraries,
the
American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries
and the
Special Libraries Association.

We are pleased that our associations, which represent more than
75,000
professionals in pubic, academic and special libraries throughout the
country, were included in an advisory capacity during the lengthy study
process. We commend the Government Printing Office for carrying out
this
legislatively-mandated study in a manner that considered the views of
all
three branches of the government, the library community and the
private
sector. It is especially noteworthy that members of the Working Group
consisted of representatives from key agencies, including the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA), as well as many
Congressional
staff. It is hoped that one outcome of this collaborative approach will
be
improved understanding by all stakeholders of the serious issues of
concern
to libraries and other users of government information as the
transistion
to a more electronic Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP)
proceeds.

The FDLP has existed for one hundred and thirty-nine years as a very
successful partnership program between the federal government,
libraries
and the public. This partnership must become even stronger in the
future
in order that the move to a more electronic program succeeds in
reaching
its goal: that is, the use of new technologies to expand the public's
access to government information. We are pleased with the draft
report's
principles for federal government information, including the public's
right
to know and the government's responsibility to disseminate and
provide
broad and permanent access to its information. The well-articulated
goals
for an electronic FDLP, as noted in the draft report, must be realized to
ensure that these important principles are achieved.
It is especially
gratifying that many of the comments and concerns addressed in our
previous
joint letter to you regarding the Transition Plan were incorporated into
the draft report. We do wish to offer some additional general
comments on
the draft study as there continue to be many areas of serious concern
and
importance to our members.

TIME FRAME: We are pleased that the draft report offers a more
realistic and technologically feasible five to seven year time frame for
the transition. The Transition Chronology proposed in the strategic
plan
better reflects the nation's technological infrastructure; the ability of
agencies to create and provide access to information electronically; and
the capabilities of libraries and users to effectively utilize such
information. We will urge members of the Congresssional authorizing
and
appropriating committees to support this more realistic time frame so
that
no barriers develop during the transitional years that would reduce the
public's access to government information.

VIABILITY OF PRINT: We are pleased that the draft study recognizes
the
continued viability of a variety of formats, including print, to meet user
needs. Format decisions should be based on usage, on the needs of the
user
community, and also on an agency's own dissemination requirements.
While
electronic information offers many advantages to paper, including
timeliness, the ability to perform full-text searches and to manipulate
data, certain types of materials will continue to be more efficiently
created, disseminated and used in paper format.

Another problematic area regarding format decisions concerns
fee-based
products and services; namely, when an agency stops production of a
title
in print and moves it into a fee-based online service. One example of
this
is that depository libraries have in the past been able to select the FBIS
and JPRS reports in print formats but these are now available online
through paid subscriptions to the new World News Connection service
of the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS). It is planned that by
the
end of this year these important materials will be available only online
while the printed and microfiche reports will be phased out. Valuable
materials that have traditionally been available to depositories will no
longer be included in the program since NTIS does not offer no-fee
access
to the World News Connection for depository libraries.

REDUNDANCY AND DIVERSITY: We are pleased that the draft study
recognizes the principles of redundancy and diversity as articulated in
NCLIS Principle #5: The Federal Government Should Ensure A Wide
Diversity
of Sources of Access, Private as well as Governmental, to Public
Information. Redundancy--in access, in formats, and in preservation--is
both a necessity and an advantage. It provides a safeguard in case of
overloaded systems, natural or man-made disasters, and even
government
shutdowns.

It is the government's affirmative obligation to ensure permanent
access to the information that it produces. In the electronic
environment,
diverse and multiple partners are needed to promote and ensure access
and
preservation to government information long after its initial creation
and
dissemination. At the same time, a diversity of other public, private
and
not-for-profit sources is critical to ensuring that information remains
available in useful and convenient ways.

CENTRALIZATION: We are pleased
that the draft study recognizes the need for coordination and
centralization to meet the goals of the FDLP. The program in a
distributed
electronic environment requires coordination to bring all participants
together on issues of: 1) standardization and guidelines to ensure ease
of
locating information and guarantees of long-term access; 2) no-fee
access
to all government information, including fee-based products and
services;
and 3) usability. The complexities of these issues, particularly when
many
agencies are creating their own web sites, seems to be underestimated in
the draft report. We commend GPO ACCESS as the
legislatively-mandated
centralized point of entry to electronic government information and the
GPO
locator services that assists the public in finding information across
diverse government entities. Users must have timely and
comprehensive
finding aids to the growing vast universe of electronic government
information, and centralized coordination is the most efficient means.

In addition to the above general comments on the draft study, we
firmly
believe that the study's goal of ensuring broader public access through
electronic means will not be achieved unless the following concerns are
addressed. While details of the draft study and the strategic plan
remain
to be worked out, these issues are critical to the transition's success.
We hope also that the collaborative approach which GPO brought to
the study
itself will be maintained so that all interested and involved partners,
including our associations, may continue to participate in the process.

MORE DATA NEEDED: We remain very concerned that although
some useful
information was gathered during the study process, neither the draft
report, the models developed as part of the task force reports, nor the
strategic plan are based on substantive data regarding costs to and
capabilities of the government, libraries or the public to produce, access
and use predominately electronic information. We believe that a
technical
scan is necessary and we will urge Congress to approve funding for the
Technical Implementation Assistance which the report proposes.

NO-FEE ACCESS: We strongly support the study's first goal statement
which ensures that the public has equitable, no-fee local access to
government information through depository libraries. The draft study
addresses this issue by suggesting that reimbursement to agencies for
fee-based services could come from the Superintendent of Documents.
There
are no assurances, however, that there will be continued adequate
funding
to support the transition plan. Consequently, we are concerned that
government information for which agencies must recover cost,
particularly
fee-based products and services, will become a new generation for
fugitive
information.

LONG TERM PERMANENT ACCESS AND PRESERVATION: The draft
report
acknowledges that issues relating to long-term access and preservation
of
electronic government information require new relationships, indeed
new
strategies, between all stakeholders: GPO, agencies, NARA and
participating
libraries. Yet the draft fails to identify what these strategies may
entail and the responsiblities for each partner. Long term preservation
and access issues are critical to the success of the FDLP; thus it is
crucial that additional information regarding these activities be
provided.
In addition, the draft report includes the recommendation that GPO
will
assume new responsibilities in the archival arena. Through many years
of
maintaining preservation and archival programs and collections,
libraries
have learned that these efforts require significant investments in
technological solutions (e.g. deacidification and digitization pilots),
personnel, and facilities. To be successful in undertaking new
preservation and archiving responsibilities, GPO will need to provide
additional detail regarding how such tasks will be accomplished. We
suggest that a comprehensive study be undertaken among all partners
to
guarantee permanent long term access and preservation. For example,
it is
not clear how and when GPO would support the "periodic review and
refreshing of data to different mediums."

The issues of long term permanent access and preservation are
central
to the transition to a more electronic program and thus we are
especially
concerned that the draft study offers no specifics, no data, no costs and
no assurances. We reaffirm that these critical issues are the
responsibility of the government and that they must be
comprehensively
addressed before the transition plan is implemented. The questions are
very basic ones: first, how do we assure that electronic information will
be available and usable next month, next year, or in twenty-five, fifty, or
even a hundred years from now; and second, who will be responsible
for
ensuring long-term permanent access. In shifting long-term access from
depository libraries to the government, as the draft study suggests, we
must be assured that funding will remain adequate so that the
government
can refresh and migrate information. Otherwise, our national historical
records will disappear into a black hole and the advantages of
electronic
information will be nullified.

COPYRIGHT-LIKE RESTRICTIONS: Principle 5 states that
Government
information created or compiled at Government expense or by
Government
employees as part of their official duties, regardless of the format in
which it is published, is in the public domain. We strongly affirm this
principle and note that some agencies are imposing copyright-like
restrictions on electronic information. Worrisome patterns are already
being proposed; for example, in the case of an agency restricting the
downloading of information or its electronic re-transmission. This is
an
egregious barrier not only to the public's current and long term access
to
information but also to innovative and creative forces in the private
sector to develop enhanced products and services. Further, regarding
the
proposal of the National Technical Information Service, libraries can
neither restrict nor control users from placing electronic information on
the Internet.

FEE-BASED PRODUCTS AND SERVICES: In order to fulfill the goals
of an
enhanced FDLP program, it is vital that materials not currently in the
program, such as those created by self-supporting agencies who are by
law
required to recover their costs, be included. While the draft report
proposes models through which these materials whould enter the
program, the
key question is, of course, who is going to pay. GPO suggests that the
Superintendent of Documents would reimburse agencies for the cost of
including these products and services in the program. However, there
are
no guarantees that Congress would assure the necessary funding.

This issue addresses the troubling question of cost recovery and
quasi-business corporations. Regarding the NTIS proposal for example,
it
is very troubling that libraries would be asked to become watchdogs to
ensure that these electronic materials do not leak out into the public
domain. We are also concerned that these or similar restrictions could
potentially be used by agencies for access to services for which users
have
paid subscriptions. A strong affirmation on redistribution without
copyright-like restrictions for agency cost-recovery programs is
imperative.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROGRAM LIBRARIES: We are
concerned that since all depository libraries will soon be required to
have
Internet access and since, according to the plan, most government
information will be available in electronic format, even the smallest
program library will by default become a "regional" for electronic
government information. Requiring all libraries to fulfill the regional
depository libraries' statutory responsibilities of access and service will
place undue burdens on selectives. In order to prevent this occurrence,
more flexibility must be built into the program that allows libraries to
provide access to electronic information in a manner they can
accommodate.
We must all acknowledge the tremendous value of program libraries
and it is
important to provide incentives for their continued participation in the
program.

CONCLUSION:

These comments on the draft study and the strategic plan supplement
our
oral comments delivered at last week's joint Working Group and
Advisors
meeting. We will submit additional comments on the draft study and
particularly on some of the specific Task Force Reports within the next
few
weeks. In particular, we are troubled that some proposed alternative
models in several of the Task Force Reports may not be wholly in
accord
with the study's affirmed principles and goals and thus are very
problematic to our members.

We are especially pleased to see the new draft language of the
definitions in Chapter 19, Title 44 that acknowledge that electronic
information is explicitly defined in the law as being a key component of
the FDLP. It is crucial that Chapter 19 be amended to reflect these
changes in definitions and the broader scope of the FDLP to assure that
the
goals for a more electronic program are achieved.

We believe that funding for the technology grants will provide seed
money for small selective libraries which otherwise would be unable to
provide access to electronic products and services to members of their
local communities. One-time technology grants are a step in the right
direction although they may not be sufficient since technology itself
changes so rapidly as do user needs. To strengthen the justification for
these technology grants, we suggest that GPO determine the number of
libraries that would be unable to provide access to the expanding array
of
electronic FDLP materials without these start-up grants.

We would like to make the following recommendations: 1) that the
substantial progress and inter-agency dialog achieved throughout the
past
year continue; 2) that GPO and agencies work together to determine
consistency regarding format and standards; and 3) that the Working
Group
model continue with Information Resource Management
representatives from
GPO, the Library of Congress, the Office of Management and Budget,
and the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, as well as the library
community and users. We remain concerned that the draft study lacks
clear incentives for agencies to participate in the program, particularly
when their budgets are being cut. We also firmly believe that means of
oversight and compliance must be provided in a meaningful and
effective
way. Our associations, representing the broader library community, are
willing to work with you to supplement and strengthen the study by
offering
additional information in the following areas: the capabilities of and
impact on libraries and users; the role and responsibilities of regional
and selective depository libraries; and the troublesome questions of
oversight and compliance. Thank you very much for this opportunity
to
comment on the draft report.

Sincerely,

Robert L. Oakley
Washington Affairs Representative
American Association of Law Libraries

Carol C. Henderson
Executive Director-Washington Office
American Library Association

Prudence S. Adler
Assistant Executive Directory
Association of Research Libraries

David R. Bender
Executive Director
Special Libraries Association

cc: Members, House and Senate Legislative Appropriations
Subcommittees
Chair and Ranking Minority Member, House and Senate Authorizing
Committees Ms. Linda Kemp, Staff Director, Joint Committee on
Printing

May 24, 1996

Michael F. DiMario
Public Printer
U.S. Government Printing Office
732 N. Capitol Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20401

Dear Mr. DiMario:

We appreciate this opportunity to offer some final comments on the
Report
to the Congress: Study to Identify Measures for a Successful Transition
to a
More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program. On behalf of the
American Association of Law Libraries, the American Library
Association, the
Association of Research Libraries and the Special Libraries Association,
we
again thank you for including us as advisors to this very important
study.

Our earlier letters to you on the March draft report to Congress and
on
The Electronic Federal Depository Library Program: Transition Plan, FY
1996-FY
1998 issued in December, have already articulated many of our
concerns.
These are very important issues, and include bibliographic control, long
term
access, preservation and authenticity, to name but a few. We firmly
believe
that these issues must be decisively addressed before the transition to a
predominately electronic program proceeds any further.

In addition, we believe that Task 1A, the "Technical analysis by a
Federally-funded research and development center (FFRDC)" was crucial
to
determining the most cost effective way to implement the more
electronic
program. We reiterate our belief that the Technical Implementation
Assistance Study (Executive Summary, Appendix A) must be carried out
to
provide necessary analytical data on technological issues including
hardware,
software, and communications options. The surveys of depository
libraries
and agencies will assist GPO in making informed decisions on how the
transition can reasonably be achieved.

We have some additional comments regarding the technological
infrastructure. Planning for technological change is never easy, but the
enormous technological change in the underlying information
infrastructure
makes the job even more difficult. There are few certainties about what
the
infrastructure will look like next year, much less five to ten years from
now. For instance, five years ago no one predicted the growth and
range of
use of the Internet that has occurred since that time. (We refer you to
the
recent report of the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board
of the
National Research Council, titled the Unpredictable Certainty.)

We do know that, rapid as the growth has been, the evolution of a
robust
widespread and high-speed national infrastructure will be slower than
what
seems to be anticipated in the strategic plan. Capital investments must
be
made in the underlying technology, marketable applications need to be
developed to stimulate private investments, and users must invest in
technology and training at their end, in order to take advantage of new
services. This takes time.

We also know that the basic architecture of the future infrastructure
is
still undetermined, and may take some time to settle down. Will highly
centralized services and resources be most economic and effective, or
will
technology favor distributed resources? Will application software
reside in
the net or will it be in the users' computers? How will the economics of
the
high quality printing evolve? The answers to all of the questions may
well
change over time as new innovations reach the market, as new
discoveries are
made in the laboratories, and as users such as libraries, publishers, and
government agencies find new ways to use information technology.

Thus, the following two points are critical.

First, the transition plan should be flexible and evolving and not be
overly dependent on particular technological characteristics and
projections.
In brief, it should not put all of its eggs in one technological basket and
not be wedded to rigid timetables.

Second, the transition should incorporate a formal and continuing
process
of technlogy scanning and evaluation that moves forward as the project
moves
forward. We have recommended all along that the GPO should be
allowed to
conduct such technology evaluations. Not only is it a critical need, it is
an on-going one.

In addition to these comments, we are attaching responses to several
of
the task reports included in the study. As advisors, we rely on our
membership for input on issues of such critical cocern to the future of
the
Federal Depository Library Program. These comments have been
drafted and
discussed by highly-skilled members of our four associations who, as
depository librarians, have first-hand knowledge of the impact of these
important issues on their institutions and their users. The task force
reports contain valuable comments and suggestions that we hope will
be taken
into consideration as we move together towards a more electronic
program.

Lastly, we join you in affirming the Principles For Federal
Government
Information and the Mission and Goals For the Federal Depository
Library
Program as articulated in the draft report to Congress (Sections III and
IV).
The Federal Depository Library Program has proven to be a highly
successful
partnership for 139 years between the government and libraries located
throughout our nation in almost every Congressional district. The
benefits
of the pprogram contribute directly to the knowledge of citizens
everywhere
about the activities of their government, and to the economic well-being
of
our nation.

We are pleased to have participated as advisors throughout the
lengthy
study process. We hope that the dialogue among the various partner
agencies
and the depository community will continue as plans are implemented
for the
shift to a more electronic FDLP. Thank you very much for considering
our
concerns during the study process. Please do not hesitate to contact
any one
of us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Robert L. Oakley
Washington Affairs Representative
American Association of Law Libraries

Carol C. Henderson
Executive Director-Washington Office
American Library Association

Prudence S. Adler
Assistant Executive Director
Association of Research Libraries

David R. Bender
Executive Director
Special Libraries Association

cc: Members, House and Senate Legislative Appropriations
Subcommittee Chair
and Ranking Minority Member, House and Senate Authorizing
Committees
Ms. Linda Kemp, Staff Director, Joint Committee on Printing

Enclosures

TASK 5: Evaluation of Incentives for Publishing Agencies to Migrate
From
Print Products to Electronic Format. (Attachment D-4)

ABSTRACT: The full participation by publishing agencies is essential to
the
success of any government information dissemination program, yet it is
important to recognize that agencies have many responsibilities and
many
pressures on limited budgets. The only positive incentive for agencies
to
convert depository materials to electronic formats will be a system
which
is as automatic and cost effective for them as the traditional program.
Since provision of information to depository libraries is not a major
part
of agency missions, the incentives to adopt electronic publishing must
come
from a broader vision of the value of an informed citizenry; data which
identifies current progress and barriers; and directives to agencies
which
make the government commitment to information access very clear. In
the
electronic environment there is a need for central coordination of
public
access to government information. The existence of a program which
would
provide leadership in standards, cataloging, and long-term access could
in
itself be an incentive for agencies to use electronic publishing as a
cost-effective way of carrying out missions while assuring public access
to
information.

The issues raised in Task 5 are very important ones, since without
full participation by publishing agencies no government information
dissemination program can be completely successful. Depository
libraries
have tried to find ways to develop communication channels with as
many
agencies as possible. Since the depositories serve users of agency
information who may not be recognized by the agencies as their primary
users, depository librarians are in a position to communicate user
needs,
suggest improvements in agency products and software, and to
recommend
agency publications and electronic resources to potential users and
buyers.

The legislative requirements for the GPO study ask for a study which
"surveys current and future dissemination plans of executive branch
agencies." Without the data which would have been gathered by the
technical
analysis of an FFRDC (Task 1), it is not possible to identify with much
accuracy the progress which is being made by agencies or the barriers
which
might lead to the identification of incentives. The mention in the
Strategic Plan that a survey will be part of the Technical
Implementation
Assistance is very positive and this survey will be useful in expanding
on
the incentives identified in Task 5.

The task assumes that agencies should be migrating from print to
electronic formats. Many agencies are making major strides in that
direction. On the other hand, there are some publications which
agencies
will decide are most useful to their primary clientele in paper format.
In
such cases, it will be important to weigh both the costs of reproduction
and distribution in paper format or the cost of electronic conversion,
and
the usefulness of the final product. If the agency has no need of its own
to provide an electronic version of a particular publication to meet its
mission, another entity such as GPO will need to absorb the costs of
electronic conversion if that format is to be provided to depositories.

The Task 5 report makes a powerful point in explaining why the
Federal
Depository Library Program (FDLP) works so smoothly for agencies in
the
traditional formats. The GPO reproduces the necessary extra copies
without
any effort on the part of the agencies, and Congressional appropriations
pay the costs of reproduction and distribution. The publications are
made
available across the country in a way that is simple and cost-effective.
The only positive incentive for agencies to convert to electronic formats
will be a system which is equally as automatic and cost-effective for
them.
An additional incentive would be added if services were offered to
agencies
which would assist them in meeting their primary missions in more
effective
ways.

Incentive A

Incentive A in the Task 5 report is based on the assumption that
agencies would still be submitting publications for printing, and that
GPO
would then be making decisions about formats for the FDLP. This
provides
the opportunity for electronic conversion of publications, which could
serve information needs of FDLP users and of the agencies themselves.
But
it may not provide a major incentive for agencies to move away from
print
altogether, unless the services offered by GPO can provide efficiencies
beyond what the agencies can do in other ways.

Incentive B

Incentive B applies to information products which agencies do
provide
electronically and maintain themselves, and suggests ways to assure
that
the information is included in the FDLP. It addresses to some extent
the
need for a FDLP even when information is available somewhere on the
Web.
FDLP partners assist users in identifying appropriate and authoritative
information, and provide sites for access by users who have no direct
Web
connections. With these benefits, and the added proposal that the GPO
would assist in transferring electronic information as required by
NARA, it
could provide incentives for agency cooperation with the FDLP, for
information already in electronic format. It is less clear whether these
advantages would be enough to act as incentives to migrate additional
information from print.

Issues

The issues identified in the Task 5 report are important ones which
deserve additional prominence as the study progresses. The need for
standardization, at least for a consensus on a group of acceptable
formats
and software, is expressed by both agencies and users. This process
should
provide a mechanism to move toward acceptance of standards, not to be
imposed by GPO but to be agreed upon by all branches of government.
GPO's
service could be to evaluate alternatives and assist with
implementation.

Task 5 concludes that even in the electronic environment there is a
need for a central focus for coordinating public access to government
information. If the government is to carry out its commitment to public
access to its information, a central coordinating authority will be the
most cost-effective way to assure that.

The problem with trying to use the FDLP as an incentive to move
agencies to electronic publishing is that agencies have many
responsibilities and many pressures on limited budgets. The provision
of
information to libraries is not the primary mission for most agencies,
and
their incentives to adopt electronic publishing must come from a
broader
vision of what will serve agency missions and also prove cost-effective.
If elements of the FDLP and services offered by the GPO can be proven
to
assist agencies in these ways, participation in the program can provide
a
viable incentive for migration to electronic information dissemination.

TASK 6: Evaluation of current laws governing the FDLP and
recommendation of
any legislative changes necessary for a successful transition to a more
electronic program. (Attachment D-5)

ABSTRACT: The draft changes to Chapter 19, Title 44, aim to facilitate
the
transition to a more electronic program. Chapter 19 should be
amended to
recognize the electronic focus of the program and to ensure that the
growing array of electronic products and services published by all three
branches of government are included in the program. The entire
life-cycle
of information--from its creation to its permanent access and
preservation--and agency compliance are additional issues that need to
be
taken into consideration as legislative changes are considered by
Congress.

Section 1. Scope of Information in the FDLP

The draft language definitions of "Government information,"
"Government information product," and "Government electronic
information
service" (1a) indicate that information produced in a variety of
electronic
formats, including both tangible products and online services, are as
much
within the scope of the program as materials produced in print formats.
The Task 6 draft also suggests language that would bring into the
program
materials that have in the past been excluded. These include
cooperative
publications that must be sold by agencies in order to be self-sustaining
(1b); fee-based electronic services (1c); and products not produced or
procured by GPO (1e).

In the current budget environment, there is concern that agencies
may
impose copyright- like restrictions on government information
products,
both in print and electronic formats. Congress needs to address this
issue
as it conflicts with Principle 5, "Government Information Created or
Compiled by Government Employees or at Government Expense Should
Remain in
the Public Domain." A stated goal of the GPO study was to find ways of
using technology to improve and enhance the public's access to
information.
To be successful, the FDLP is dependent on Congress to provide
sufficient
funding, either directly to agencies or through the Superintendent of
Documents, to make these materials available to the public at no cost.

As the number of agency electronic information products grow, the
role
of the GPO in providing users with bibliographic and long-term access
becomes even more critical. A mechanism whereby the Superintendent
of
Documents is able to access electronic source data files from agencies is
vital to ensuring that such data becomes a part of the program, is easily
identifiable to the public, and is available for the long-term.

Section 2. Permanent Public Access to Government Information.

The proposed programmatic changes shift responsibility for
permanent
public access from participating depository libraries to the government.
In view of the fact that agencies are today developing web sites with
neither standards nor requirements for long-term access, a significant
loss
of valuable information is already occurring. The proliferation of
agency
web sites will exacerbate this loss unless legislative changes clearly
define roles and responsibilities of all participants. Agencies should
comply not only with making information available to the public, for
example through an agency web site, but also with assuring that the
files
are transferred for permanent access to either the GPO or another
archival
facility. Legislative changes should consider the entire life-cycle of
electronic information.

The draft language suggests that coordination by the Superintendent
of
Documents may accomplish the goal of permanent public access. Other
than
proposing use of GPO's electronic storage facility, however, the draft
language lacks specifics as to which entities are to be ultimately
responsible for permanent public access. More precise language would
be
useful. In addition, sufficient incentives, including funding, are
necessary to entice program libraries to participate in a distributed
system for permanent long-term access.

Finally, more precise recommendations are needed to address the
preservation of data, migration of formats as necessary, distributed
storage of data and equipment, and long-term public access concerns.
Until
these issues are addressed and resolved, any transition to an electronic
depository program is incomplete and will result in a significant loss of
access to government information by the public.

Section 3. Requirements for Depository Libraries.

Depository libraries in the past have fulfilled the requirement for
providing public access and service with outstanding commitment. The
transition to a predominately electronic program, however, imposes
new and
significant responsibilities and costs. It is questionable that the
premise that each depository library, even small selectives, would be
able
to provide public access and service to all materials to which the locator
service links. Assuredly, a program library must meet and probably
exceed
the proposed minimum technical guidelines in order to provide
adequate
public access. However, a program library should have the flexibility to
provide expertise and service depending on their own user community
needs
and collection strengths. The draft language suggested to expand 44
U.S.C.
1909 is vague and not sufficiently specific to provide guidance for
designation of program libraries.

Section 4. Notification.

It is important that the draft language notification requires that an
agency inform the Superintendent of Documents when an information
product
or service is initiated, substantially modified, or terminated. This
provision parallels the notification requirement of the Paperwork
Reduction
Act of 1995 and is necessary in order for GPO to provide bibliographic
access and to coordinate permanent access to agency electronic
information
services. The notification requirement will enable GPO to provide full
and
timely bibliographic access to these products and services so that the
public can derive the maximum benefits from the value of the
information.

Section 5. Compliance Issues.

In order to meet the stated principles and goals of enhancing the
public's access to information through the use of electronic products
and
services, legislative language is needed to ensure agency compliance in
all
three branches of government. Agencies must have adequate and
positive
incentives for participation in the program but there must also be
penalties for non-compliance.

Section 6. Cataloging and Locator Services.

GPO's coordinating role of providing users with a catalog of
Government information products and services, and with the locator
service
should continue. The success of these endeavors is directly related

to whether or not agencies comply with the notification requirement.
The
public must be assured that the GPO cataloging and locator services are
comprehensive and timely since these services will be a primary point
of
access to all electronic government information.

Section 7. Redescribing the Program to Reflect a Changing
Environment.

The library community has long recommended that the FDLP
program be
renamed to become more meaningful to the general public. The
suggested new
language, "The Federal Information Dissemination and Access
Program," was
in fact introduced during the Chicago Conference on government
information
and more recently supported by the library associations in the
Enhanced
Library Access and Dissemination of Federal Government Information:
A
Framework for Future Discussion.

TASK 7: Survey Federal Agencies to Identify CD-ROM Titles Not
Currently
Included in the Federal Depository Library Program. (Attachment D-6)

ABSTRACT: Task Group 7 surveyed government agencies regarding
their
inclusion of CD-ROM products into the FDLP. Possible solutions to the
problem of agencies' bypassing the FDLP with important CD-ROM titles
are:
improved communication with agencies; more precise language in Title
44 to
recognize that electronic information falls within the scope of the
program; and better cooperation between the agencies and the FDLP to
ensure
that software licenses are negotiated for FDLP libraries. It is very
alarming to learn from the survey that over half of agency CD-ROM
titles
fall outside of the FDLP.

Task 7 addresses the need for empirical data regarding agency
participation in the FDLP. It surveyed federal agencies to determine
reasons for not including CD-ROM titles in the program. Responses to
the
survey indicate that the three most important reasons for
non-participation
in the FDLP were agencies' lack of understanding of the requirements of
Title 44 as they apply to CD-ROMS; restrictions imposed on software
licenses negotiated by agencies for their CD-ROM products; and lack of
communication between GPO and the agencies concerning inclusion of
their
products in the program.

Unfortunately, none of the agencies who responded to the survey
gave
any specific reasons for participating or not participating in the FDLP.
The survey concluded that 55.6% of agency CD-ROM titles were
identified by
agencies as not included in the program. This means that almost half
of
the CD-ROM titles are not readily available to the public at no fee at
their depository library. Responses to the survey were also incomplete,
making it difficult to make predictive and prescriptive statements based
solely on this data. Because of this situation, the Task Group also used
data obtained from ACSIS and compared it to the survey results to see
if
GPO has distributed any titles which agencies indicated were not
included
in the program.

Given the responses to the survey, better communication with the
agencies regarding their responsibilities for making their CD-ROM
products
available to the FDLP is of paramount importance. Although the study
recognizes that the language in Title 44 includes CD-ROM products, the
definitions in sections 1901 and 1902 should be strengthened in order
that
agencies share this recognition. Software licensing is another area
which
should be addressed by both the agencies and by GPO. As Task Group
7
points out in its report, "GPO can (and has) contracted for software
licenses for sales and depository copies when agency licenses do not
cover
GPO dissemination."

Fostering better communication between GPO and the agencies
hinges on
several assumptions, including the acceptance and recognition of the
need
for a central coordinating authority such as the FDLP to ensure
dissemination of federal information products and services to the
public
through libraries. Furthermore, legislative changes to Title 44 would
better enable agencies to include their CD-ROM products in the FDLP.
Whereas the numerical data gained from the survey is instructive, even
more
interesting is the casual attitude taken by the respondents, both in
some
agencies' failure to respond to the survey and in the inaccuracy of some
of
the data provided. As the Task Group concludes, "a program of
improved
communication or outreach to agencies may be necessary to ameliorate
this
situation." As with other aspects of the study, implementing this
conclusion is predicated on the assumption that adequate funding is
provided to the program.

The issues raised by this task group become even more important as
individuals and organizations are increasingly turning to CD-ROMs as
a
permanent solution to the problem of access to government information
after
its usefulness in the online environment or on the web has decreased.

TASK 8A: Evaluate the costs and benefits involved in converting
Congressional bills and resolutions to electronic formats for
distribution
through the Federal Depository Library Program. (Attachment D-7)

ABSTRACT: Alternative B eliminates microfiche distribution of
Congressional
bills and resolutions in favor of a monthly cumulative CD-ROM
containing
the PDF files. The option of selecting these important materials on
CD-ROM
would allow the public to access them in a cost-effective and
user-friendly
manner. The final annual cumulative version would provide libraries
with
assured access to older materials that might be withdrawn from the
GPO
server. Depository libraries would also have timely access to these
important materials in PDF files through GPO ACCESS. It is important
that
Congressional bills and resolutions be accessible through mirror sites
in
order to provide the depository library community with a sense of
security
that online access to recent Congressional bills and resolutions would
be
available at all times.

The distribution of Congressional bills through the Federal
Depository
Library Program (FDLP) began with paper distribution. At the
beginning of
the 97th Congress in 1981, the distribution format for Congressional
bills
changed from paper to microfiche. Although there were concerns
expressed
about the suitability of microfiche for this important category of
depository library materials, the switch to microfiche distribution
enabled
many libraries to more easily maintain collections of Congressional
bills.
A paper finding aid, arranged by category and then by bill number,
provided
a finding tool for locating the text of Congressional bills within the
microfiche collection.

Today, the availability of online services and CD-ROM technology
provides the opportunity to explore other avenues for dissemination of
Congressional materials, including Congressional bills. These options
have
been explored in the report on Task 8A which had as its mission to,
"Evaluate the costs and benefits involved in converting Congressional
bills
and resolutions to electronic formats for distribution through the
Federal
Depository Library Program."

The task force report states that Congressional bills on microfiche
are selected by 859 depository libraries at a cost of approximately
$94,940.00 per Congressional session. 544 depository libraries select
the
electronic version of bills available through GPO Access. Although 544
libraries officially select Congressional bills in electronic format, it is
safe to assume that some depository libraries are making use of
Gateway
Libraries, or directly accessing the GPO World Wide Web site. It should
be
noted that it is currently possible to select both microfiche and
electronic Congressional bills.

Alternative A: Eliminate all microfiche distribution to depository
libraries and make Congressional bills and resolutions available online
through the WAIS server. The PDF files for the bills could also be
mounted
for FTP download.

Providing online access to Congressional bills would enable those
libraries that are technologically capable to benefit from access to
current Congressional bills. Many depository libraries are fully
equipped
to access the GPO WAIS server via the World Wide Web and/or telnet;
however, a large percentage of depository libraries are not technically
capable of doing so. All depository libraries should be able to access
this important source of public information. While the microfiche may
be
difficult to read and is not arranged strictly in numerical order, it is
useable and patrons can access the materials they may need. While
technologically-capable libraries may provide electronic access to
current
Congressional bills through GPO Access, how difficult will it be for a
library to provide access to the older materials that will need to be
withdrawn from the server because of space considerations? Will this
interface be transparent for the user?

As noted in the disadvantages to this alternative, the Task Force
stated that, "If depository access to historical files is to be ensured, a
less costly and longer term distribution method will be needed to
supplement online access to the bills. This may mean production of a
CD-ROM or mounting of the PDF and ASCII files for FTP downloading
after a
predetermined period of time." Providing access to Congressional bills
solely in an online environment will negatively affect the ability of
many
depository users to access both the current files of Congressional bills
as
well as retrospective files that may be housed at separate locations.

Alternative B: Eliminate microfiche distribution of the Congressional
bills and resolutions in favor of a monthly cumulative CD-ROM
containing
the PDF files. Depository libraries would still be able to access the
online service.

This alternative provides an economic and user-friendly approach to
distributing Congressional bills and resolutions. It is estimated in the
draft report that GPO would save approximately $34,032.00 if this
approach
to dissemination of Congressional bills were adopted. While saving
costs,
this approach would also provide a useful product with the ability to
search and download the text of Congressional bills. At this time,
libraries need to use other finding aids, often commercially produced,
to
determine the location of bills they need. The 1995 Biennial Survey
indicates that 83.1% of all depository libraries have CD-ROM
capability.
This percentage makes it reasonable to expect that depository libraries
would select a CD-ROM product if it were available. A monthly
cumulative
CD-ROM will eliminate the filing and storage problems associated with
the
microfiche bills. In addition, if kept on a regular schedule, a monthly
CD-ROM product would be more up-to-date than the current microfiche
distribution, which has been subject to contractor delays. As Internet
technology becomes more stable, and as depository libraries meet
minimum
technology requirements for participation in the FDLP, it may become
unnecessary to produce a monthly update and an annual CD-ROM may
suffice.

TASK 8B: Evaluate the costs and benefits involved in converting
Congressional Documents and Reports to electronic format for
distribution
through the Federal Depository Library Program, even though currently
a
substantial amount of the source data is not available to GPO in
machine
readable form. (Attachment D-8)

ABSTRACT: The Congressional documents and reports have provided a
significant, ongoing, historical record of the work of Congress. Both
the
bound paper version and the individual slip versions of this material
has
been distributed through the Federal Depository Library Program
(FDLP). A
combination of Alternatives A and C would provide comprehensive
access to
this valuable information. Depository libraries would have timely
access
to most of the recent documents and reports through GPO ACCESS;
older
materials would be accessible either through CD-ROM or the bound
paper
Serial Set. For the electronic product to be useful though, Congress
needs
to determine what it considers the authoritative version to be.

Task 8B is to evaluate the costs and benefits associated in converting
Congressional Documents and Reports to electronic format for
distribution
through the Federal Depository Library Program. This effort must be
examined in conjunction with the production of the U.S. Congressional
Serial Set. It is important to keep in mind that these are two distinct
series. The individual slip documents and reports are produced first;
the
bound Serial Set volumes are produced much later.

The U.S. Congressional Serial Set comprises a significant portion of
the historical record of the work of Congress. The legal basis for
compilation, binding, numbering and distribution of the paper bound
Serial
Set is contained in 44 USC sections 701, 719 and 738. The Serial Set
currently includes Senate and House documents, congressional
committee
reports, presidential and other executive publications, treaty materials,
and selected reports of nongovernmental organizations.

At present, every depository library is eligible to receive both the
slip publications and the bound Serial Set in either paper and/or
microfiche format. For the 101st Congress, 1st session, the cost to GPO
for producing and distributing the Serial Set was $1,567,000. This
figure
covers 463 libraries receiving the Serial Set in paper and 755 libraries
receiving microfiche.

The conversion of documents and reports to electronic format is
problematic at present. While a high percentage of the reports are
available in machine readable format, only 20% of the documents are
received from Congress in this format. In order to be put online, GPO
has
to scan the materials to convert to a machine readable form.
Unfortunately, this does not always work resulting in a non-searchable
image file only. In order for this process to be effective, GPO will need
to receive all reports and documents in machine readable format at the
start. In addition, some documents are too graphic-intensive to ever be
converted to electronic format.

With this in mind, the Working Group has proposed three
dissemination
alternatives in Task 8B. All three alternatives continue the production
of
a bound paper Serial Set, although alternatives B and C only allow
regional
depository libraries to receive copies. The Serial Set is a very important
compilation and a key historical record to providing an ongoing
collection
of the publications of the U.S. Congress.

Alternative A: This option provides regional depository libraries
with the bound Serial Set and the slip Documents and Reports through
online
access as well as in a CD-ROM version. Selective depositories could
choose
online access to the slips in lieu of either paper or microfiche.
Selective depositories would also be able to select either the bound
Serial
Set or the Documents and Reports CD-ROM.

Alternative B: Alternative B provides the bound paper Serial Set only
to regional depository libraries. Selective depository libraries would
have the ability to select the Documents and Reports CD-ROM, which
would be
issued quarterly, cumulating for the session. All libraries would have
the
option of accessing the reports and documents online from GPO Access.

Alternative C: This option would supplement Alternative B by
providing
the option of distributing paper copies to depository libraries of any
Documents and Reports too graphically intensive to practically convert
to
electronic format.

The value of this collection of Congressional materials is
considerable. The Working Group may wish to consider a combination
of A
and C to provide optimum public access. All depository libraries that
perceive a need for the paper bound Serial Set should be able to
continue
to receive it. The individual slip documents and reports, except for
those
too graphic-intensive, would be available online until the quarterly
Documents and Reports CD-ROM is distributed to all libraries.
Whichever
alternative is chosen to provide the slip documents and reports through
the
FDLP, there is one issue that Congress still needs to address--what is
considered the authoritative version of the reports and documents?
Will an
online version be considered the authoritative version? Will the
CD-ROM
version? In conjunction with this issue is the need to guarantee the
authenticity of the electronic version.

TASK 8C: Determine the costs and the impact on public access to the
Department of Energy (DOE) technical reports through the FDLP as the
Office
of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) moves forward with its
efforts to convert these reports from microfiche to electronic format.
(Attachment D-9)

ABSTRACT: The Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and
Technical
Information (DOE/OSTI) is switching from microfiche production to a
wholly
electronic method of dissemination. The production of a fiche format is
expected to end after FY 1996. At that time DOE/OSTI will be entirely
electronic. The Department of Energy is committed to providing access
to
these valuable materials through the FDLP. Alternatives A and B
propose
making DOE/OSTI reports available through their Web site which
would
provide very timely access although because of the large number of
image
files, downloading would be very slow. Alternative C proposes access
through CD-ROMs which would not be as timely and would require
comprehensive cumulative keyword indexing. Depository libraries,
particularly Regionals, should have access to both formats with reliance
on
the Internet for the most recent reports, and on the CD-ROM for older
materials.

DOE/OSTI materials have caused many libraries, especially
regionals,
space problems due to the large number of microfiche sent each year.
During FY 1995 17,117 unique reports were shipped out to those
depository
libraries that selected them. In discussions over the past few years
depository libraries have tried to find ways to ease the burden of
storing
all of these fiche. Some suggestions have included having only a few
libraries receive these materials and furnish copies to the rest of the
system and another area that has been discussed, especially in Regional
meetings, is to have fiche on demand, i.e., only provide fiche titles upon
request from individual libraries. It was assumed that this would be
less
costly than providing large number of libraries with all of the titles.
Having this material on demand electronically would solve all of the
space
problems and potentially make the reports more timely.

At the moment GPO and DOE/OSTI have a shared agreement that
GPO pays
only for the distribution costs for DOE reports. DOE pays for
producing
the fiche and for the depository copies. They also agree to fulfill
missing publications claims and provide abstracts and indexing
services for
the reports (GPO does not catalog these publications or list them in the
Monthly Catalog). The DOE/OSTI has been very cooperative in meeting
depository library needs and has been a responsible agency in terms of
participation in the program to provide DOE information to the widest
number of users possible. The task force report states on page 2 of
Attachment D-9 that DOE/OSTI is committed to providing access to
DOE
reports free of charge to depository libraries regardless of any policy
decision they make concerning general public access. This is a most
commendable public service position for the DOE to take and the
Depository
community appreciates their efforts on our behalf to ensure that we are
included as a part of their information process.

This case study gives three dissemination alternatives. The first
two, alternatives A and B, are virtually the same except for who pays for
the costs. In these two scenarios DOE/OSTI allows depository access to
the
reports Web site. No fiche, paper copy, or CD-ROM would be available
through the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). Cost savings
would
accrue to both agencies. Additional libraries would be able to serve the
public with electronic access to this DOE Web site. The scenario further
states that just-in-time access is provided instead of just-in-case access.
In alternative A DOE/OSTI pays for the computer resources, user
support,
and depository library usage. In Alternative B incremental costs for
FDLP
usage would be paid for by GPO from their Salaries and Expenses
appropriation. In both cases the study states that one disadvantage
that
users who access the Web site through a modem would have is trouble
downloading because of the large size of the image files--a problem that
Internet users would not have to the same degree although it too can be
very slow. Also in both cases each agency might find increased costs
due
to unlimited usage.

The advantage to the FDLP is ready access to reports on a potentially
more timely basis. Libraries would not have to provide long term
storage
for this material and the library would only obtain the titles that their
patrons actually needed. The disadvantages would be the same as
raised in
other areas concerning on-line electronic material, i.e., increased costs
to library for hardware, problems of downloading big files, abilities of
library and patrons to use electronic information, and concerns over
long
term archiving and public access issues (which are not addressed in this
case study). Also Internet access may require local software, i.e., Adobe
Acrobat or something similar, to view documents and the depository
libraries may also have to distribute copies of such software to users to
take with them to read the material.

In Alternative C DOE/OSTI reports would be made available to the
FDLP
only on CD-ROMs and not on-line through the DOE Web site. These
CDs would
be packed with DOE reports in random order (DOE/OSTI estimates
approximately 125 title per CD). GPO would premaster the CD-ROMs
from DOE
image files. A key benefit of this alterative is that depository libraries
are better able to handle CD-ROMs than Internet sources (the 1995
Biennial
Survey shows 83% of FDLP have stand-alone workstation with
CD-ROM). Also
CD-ROM access means that there is no reliance or strain on the DOE
Web site
(DOE experiences no additional loads on their computer resources) and
extended access is provided all across the country at FDLPs.
Downloading
large image files would be easier on libraries using CD-ROMs than
through a
modem. The stated disadvantages are that CD-ROM access would not
be
timely, additional expenses would be incurred by GPO in creating and
maintaining indexes to each CD, and those FDLPs that do not select the
DOE
CD would still have to rely on those that did. Also GPO would probably
have to consider comprehensive cumulative keyword type indexing to
compete
with the quality of Internet access.

Another consideration not addressed is that creation of DOE reports
on
CD-ROM would call for some software package to access and use the
files on
CD. Such a software system should be user- friendly and place no
additional burdens on depository staff and hardware, nor impose any
copyright-like restrictions. Also the library may have to provide copies
of the software to their users in order to make viewing possible at
home.

Another possible scenario not proposed in the draft report is that
DOE/OSTI and GPO cooperate to extend access to depositories in both
formats, especially to Regionals. This would give timely and current
access to DOE reports through the Internet and would allow Regionals
or
some other selected group to select and house a less timely CD-ROM
version
for storage. This, of course, would be more expensive to the agency
and/or
GPO but would offer some choices to depositories, and make
downloading of
big files easier and faster. Perhaps some costs could be saved by
offering
Internet for current materials and CD-ROM access for older material.

Finally the case study leaves three issues not addressed. The first
and foremost concern is the one that seems to bother depository
librarians
the most: that is there is no mechanism or policy to ensure extended,
long
term public access to a agency Web site or that the data will be
maintained
on any WWW site. If this problem were resolved and the FDLP was
assured
that this type of access would be guaranteed then the major arguments
against Internet access could be laid to rest and libraries could get on
with solving the hardware and access burdens that such electronic
access
causes them. Another concern is that Web sites are intended to serve
the
agency's major constituency, and providing public access through the
FDLP
places additional burdens on the agency's equipment, staff, and
resources.
If this burden is too great or has not been given a great deal of study by
the agency, it could lead to a change of heart by the agency and result in
restricted access or the imposition of user fees, etc. Last but not least,
the study points out that agencies must understand that access through
the
FDLP means that their services should be designed for multiple
simultaneous
users from the same library without limitations such as single-user
passwords.

TASK 8D: Identify issues that must be addressed when an agency no
longer
makes electronic information dissemination products and services
available
at its Web site, and the site contains information that needs to remain
available to the public through the Federal Depository Library Program
(FDLP) and/or transferred to the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). (Attachment D-10)

ABSTRACT: Task Group 8D recognizes that the Office of Technology
Assessment
(OTA) exemplifies the case study of an agency no longer maintaining its
Web
site (in this case due to the agency's demise); furthermore, in this
particular situation, the Web site includes reports that have not been
formally published. The task report affirms that agency Web sites,
which
may contain information not available in any other format, "...are in
essence forms of publication and therefore may be Federal records as
defined by 44 U.S.C. 3301."

The Task 8D report states that GPO is primarily interested in
providing continued short-term access (5 years minimum) for much of
the
information on agency Web sites, while NARA focuses narrowly on that
portion of the information which has historic value, with the goal of
assuring preservation of that information. This is an
oversimplification
of the goals of the FDLP, since the Regional depository plan was
developed
primarily to guarantee permanent retention and access to the
information
distributed through the FDLP. Since the Task Force Report emphasizes
shifting the responsibility for permanently maintaining and providing
access to government information from depository libraries to the
federal
government, there is concern that: 1) some federal government
information
may "fall through the cracks" and eventually disappear, perhaps, for
example, because it has not been saved in the GPO electronic storage
facility, it has been lost in the transfer of data from one site to
another, or it does not meet NARA's criteria for historic value; and 2)
that there will continue to be adequate bibliographic control of this
information for both retrieval and inventory purposes. Task 8D
repeatedly
addresses these important issues.

The report suggests two dissemination alternatives for GPO
regarding
OTA electronic files, with the understanding that: 1) OTA has already
made
arrangements to mount information from OTA Online on GPO's Web
site; and 2)
OTA also has a contract to scan all the texts of their reports dating from
1972 and convert to Acrobat PDF format; these files will be packaged
along
with much of the information available via OTA Online and some
additional
historical material on a set of five discs. Alternative B, which would
have the OTA CD-ROM set distributed to depository libraries, and after
a
predetermined period of time, OTA information would be removed from
the GPO
Web site, is more cost-effective and has fewer disadvantages/problems
than
Alternative A, which has GPO maintaining the OTA information on its
Web
site as well as distributing the CD-ROM collection upon completion,
with no
plan for permanent retention of the OTA files. The Task Group may
wish to
consider a third alternative which effectively combines Alternatives A
and
B, but has GPO transferring the OTA files to NARA for permanent
retention,
after the CD-ROM set of OTA reports has been completed and
distributed to
depository libraries. This would eliminate the problem of NARA not
accepting the CD-ROM set because it uses the PDF software-dependent
format,
and also would allow NARA to accession only those files which were
unique
or of historic value, knowing that a complete set of files was available
through the FDLP.

Regarding the appraisal alternatives, Alternative A, which would
have
NARA accession the records of the persons/committees responsible for
maintaining agency Web sites, with the idea that these records would
reflect the content and structure of the site, is less satisfactory than
the other alternatives offered. The 8D report admits that "This
option...ignores the possibility that in the future, the information
posted
on the Web site might not appear in any other format...[so] it is
necessary
not only to appraise the records of those maintaining the files, but the
files on the Web site itself." This is a real situation; the FDLP already
has begun to distribute federal information solely in an online format.

While Alternative B, which has NARA accessioning all files within a
Web site, is more comprehensive than Alternative C, in which NARA
would
accession selected files, there are potential problems involved in
documenting the huge amount of files and links within some agency
Web
sites. However, there are also problems with Alternative C in which
NARA
would determine which files may not exist in any other format as well
as
which files have historic value, in order to decide which files to
eventually accession.

One of the major issues identified in the 8D report is permanent
FDLP
access to electronic information dissemination products and services.
The
report asks "If information already has been distributed in paper,
microfiche or CD-ROM does it make sense to provide continued online
access
to the information?" Yet in Alternative B in the OTA scenario, where the
CD-ROM set of OTA reports would be distributed to depositories and
the OTA
information would be removed from the GPO Web site, it is considered
a
disadvantage for public access to the reports to be available only at or
through depository libraries. GPO and NARA should work closely
together to
determine the best method of ensuring permanent FDLP access to
government
information. The concept of transferring responsibility for permanent
retention/access from depository libraries to federal agencies may need
to
be revisited with the intent to consider compromises that fall between
the
two extremes. For example, one possibility might be for the FDLP to
establish Regional electronic depositories which would be responsible
for
storing and providing access to information contained on federal
agency Web
sites; NARA would be able to select only those files considered to be
unique or of historic value for retention in the National Archives.

The Task Group has brought an important issue to the forefront,
especially since the report also states "If an agency decides to
discontinue access to information through their Web site, does GPO
have a
responsibility to obtain the information and provide funds and
resources
for its continued access through the FDLP?" Since NARA is not
mentioned in
the discussion of this issue, there certainly is an implication that either
depository libraries and their patrons (the public) should not
necessarily
expect to obtain access to this information through the National
Archives,
or, depositories and their patrons will not necessarily find the
information as easily located and retrieved from NARA as it is through
the
FDLP. GPO and NARA should consider all of the federal information
needs of
the American public in order to determine the best arrangement the two
agencies can work out between themselves and among all federal
agencies to
ensure permanent public access to electronic federal government
information.

TASK 9: Evaluation of issues surrounding inclusion in electronic
formats of
materials not traditionally included in the FDLP in either paper or
microfiche. Examples include: Federal district and circuit court
opinions
(Task 9B), SEC filings (Task 9A), patents, military specifications and a
variety of other scientific and technical information (primarily
contractor
reports). (Attachment D-11).

ABSTRACT: The Working Group is to commended for evaluating
alternatives for
improving access to these valuable materials through the Federal
Depository
Library Program. The materials considered in the Task 9 report have
generally not been distributed through the program and yet the
information
clearly meets requirements for depository distribution. Cost
considerations and other factors have restricted its dissemination
through
the FDLP although other similar material is distributed. It would
enhance
public access and be extremely useful to make STI (scientific and
technical) data available electronically through the program. However,
the
imposition of copyright-like restrictions on the electronic dissemination
of this data is very problematic.

The types of information considered in Task 9--patents, military
specifications and standards, Congressional Research Service Studies,
and
scientific and technical information such as EPA technical reports and
guidelines, DOD technical reports and NTIS reports--include resources
of
enormous importance to scholarly and industrial research and
development.
It is very helpful that the Working Group evaluated several alternatives
for improving access to these materials through the FDLP. The
materials
considered in the Task 9 report have generally not been distributed
through
the program. Many are similar in nature to report literature, such as
Department of Energy and NASA reports, which have been part of the
FDLP.
Patent literature has been available through a separate and more
limited
patent library depository program. It would be highly desirable to
improve
access to patents, specifications and standards, CRS Studies, EPA and
DOD
technical report literature through the FDLP. The information available
clearly meets requirements for depository distribution; cost
considerations
and other factors have restricted its dissemination through the FDLP
although other similar material is distributed.

Voluminous materials such as specifications and standards, patents,
and STI (scientific and technical information) seem ideally suited to
on-demand electronic delivery because of the costs and space required
to
disseminate, house and maintain either a paper or a microfiche
collection.
Any given report, specification or patent may be used infrequently,
although the cumulative use of the collection may be high.

Not addressed in the Task 9 report is the issue of bibliographic
access to these voluminous collections of STI materials. Increasingly,
print indexes are being discontinued and are not necessarily being
replaced
by improved electronic versions. In the case of NTIS, its primary
catalog
and index is now privately produced and is not available in an
electronic
version at no cost. By contrast, the Patent and Trademark Office is
greatly improving access to its materials through online electronic
indexing and abstracting. In order to avoid losing our national
research
heritage, the cumulative results of millions of dollars of investment of
public and private funds, maintaining both bibliographic access and
access
to the print or electronic versions of the documentation itself is
important.

A major obstacle to FDLP dissemination of these valuable resources
is
the cost-recovery basis under which some agencies operate. Ideally,
agencies should be funded to a level to permit no-fee distribution, at
least to depository libraries, and to make charges to others based on the
incremental cost of dissemination. In an electronic environment, such
considerations have led agencies such as NTIS to propose the
imposition of
copyright-like restrictions on electronic dissemination of data.
Relatively few NTIS publications are popular enough to sell enough
copies
to turn a profit and it would be possible for competitors to skim off and
sell their own copies of popular titles. NTIS and other agencies are also
concerned that if a depository library made an electronic publication
freely available, the agency's own market would be negatively affected.
Similar fears of negatively impacting the market for print or microform
materials have not materialized. The proposal outlined by NTIS would
impose copyright-like restrictions on the use and manipulation of
government information.

Dissemination alternatives: In evaluating alternatives for
dissemination, it should be assumed that no one alternative is
appropriate
for all the types of information discussed under Task 9. Also, it is
critical that long-term access to and preservation of printed and
electronic information be ensured. Alternatives C and D, which involve
the
Government Printing Office in the distribution process, would provide
long-term access. Similar guarantees should be assured for any
alternative
selected.

Alternative A and B: Alternative A provides that agencies would
make
their own information available for dissemination through the Internet,
at
no cost to the user. The GPO Locator would direct users, including
depository library users, to the agency site. Alternative B is similar,
except that agencies would charge a fee for their information and GPO
would
negotiate an agreement to pay the costs of online access for depository
libraries. The agreement could include limitations on number of users
or
on remote access via library networks, but would not include
copyright-like
restrictions on use or re-use of information.

Alternative A and B may be appropriate for voluminous data such as
patents and information under the custody of NTIS or DTIC. Both
alternatives would greatly improve access to materials which have
never
been available through the FDLP, and in both instances, the FDLP
would
provide assistance to users in locating and using the data. It is also
true that displaying and printing extensive documents with tables and
graphics will not be easy, and both libraries and end-users will need to
acquire appropriate equipment, software, AND experience in making
this
information accessible. Even when information is disseminated at no
fee,
the costs to users will be significant.

Among the disadvantages of both alternatives would be that public
access will put additional loads on agency computing and
telecommunications
resources as well as on support services. Nearly 1400 libraries could be
potential users and would need access training and support.

In the current budgetary environment, it is unrealistic to expect that
Congress will elect to completely subsidize the Internet dissemination
of
patents and STI. Thus no-fee access through the FDLP would be a
substantial improvement in public access. Other data, such as
specifications, are currently available at no cost and should continue to
be, since electronic distribution may be a more cost-effective alternative
for the agency.

Alternative C: This option provides that GPO would establish a
database of information from agency sites which is tailored to the
FDLP.
This alternative would relieve agencies of concerns about unauthorized
access to other information in its files, as well as the user load on its
systems. It would also provide a desirable redundancy of access,
maintaining availability of data in the case of damage at another site.
Because of the voluminous nature of some of this information, it may
not be
economically feasible for GPO to create and maintain a separate
database.
However, for less extensive materials from agencies with security
concerns,
this alternative could be ideal. Under Alternative C, the standard
interfaces GPO could offer, and the additional bibliographic access it
might provide, would be important contributions to effective use of the
information.

Alternatives D and E: In Alternatives D and E, GPO would distribute
information downloaded from online sources to the FDLP in CD-ROM
format,
either produced by agencies (D) or GPO (E). CD-ROM distribution is
the
least desirable alternative, for a variety of reasons: the time delay in
distributing the CD-ROMS; the sheer number of CD-ROMS that would
need to be
distributed; the difficulty in locating the required data on the CD; and
the inability to update material distributed in CD-ROM format.
Long-term
access to these materials must be ensured. At present, CD-ROMS may
offer
an edge in terms of long-term access, but they do not provide the kind
of
on-demand access that may be more appropriate for large collections of
data
in which any given title receives little use.

Alternative F: This option was proposed by the National Technical
Information Service after the completion of the Task 9 report. It is a
variation on Alternative B, in which the information is available from
an
agency site, for a fee, but without the involvement of the Government
Printing Office. It is a unique model in that valuable materials would
be
made available to the public for the first time through depository
libraries, and yet the materials would not be an official part of the
FDLP.
The NTIS proposal requires an agreement from participating libraries
not to
release the electronic file outside the library or use it for commercial
purposes. Such a restriction is necessary, according to NTIS, to assure
that depository access and use do not infringe on the agency's own
market.
At the same time, this in effect amounts to a copyright-like restriction
on
the downstream use of these materials and would put librarians in the
position of having to limit or even police the use of these materials.

On one hand, this overture from NTIS should be viewed as an
opportunity to make important STI materials more readily available to
the
public through depository libraries. On the other hand, the proposal
places restrictions on the use of government information that are
expressly
prohibited in Principle 5 of the draft report and indeed in the
Paperwork
Reduction Act. Of concern with the NTIS proposal is that it might
become
an accepted model for other electronic government information
services.
Therein lies a grave danger to the public's no-fee access through the
FDLP.
It is a serious issue which requires Congressional study and review.

Regarding the NTIS proposal, it would be useful for the pilot project
to be carefully developed with input from the depository library
community
and the NTIS Advisory group. This is a very important undertaking
that
will add valuable materials to the program. Libraries will have a great
deal of work to do doing the pilot project to establish mechanisms for
printing documents. The pilot project should be useful for testing
mechanisms of delivering material electronically to individual users
that
would not damage NTIS's market.

TASK 9A: Evaluate issues surrounding inclusion of the Securities
Exchange
Commission (SEC) EDGAR System in the Federal Depository Library
Program
when the information is not already included in paper or microfiche
format.
(Attachment D-12)

ABSTRACT: It is commendable that the SEC has taken full advantage of
WWW
technologies to provide no-fee access to the EDGAR database, a
valuable
public resource to company records. Task 9A proposes two alternatives
for
public access to EDGAR through the FDLP: the first suggests using the
GPO
Locator service to enhance the public's ability to access EDGAR through
the
Internet but does not address the need for multiple mirror sites nor the
long term need for ready access to historical EDGAR information; the
second, the distribution of CD-ROMs, may resolve the multiple site
access
and long term storage issues but would add expense and rely on a
technology
that may soon become outdated. Both alternatives have merit but a
combination of both may be most desirable. A third alternative could
be
considered, not to replace the others, in which libraries, community
civic
networks, library consortia, and other not-for-profit organizations form
partnerships with federal government information producing agencies.
These
partnerships will assure ready and timely access to EDGAR resources
through
redundancy of access to the information, as well as long term
preservation
of this important information.

The 9A Task Group has selected the SEC EDGAR System as an model
of
using the Internet to increase public access to electronic information.
The commitment of SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt to resist pressure to
privatize the EDGAR System and post it directly to the WWW serves as
a
model for other federal information providers. Appropriately, with the
advent of Internet access, Chairman Levitt has concluded that the SEC
has
the responsibility to make these materials equally available to the
public--individual users, libraries, and the private sector.

In the draft study, Task 9A describes two alternatives for providing
access to SEC EDGAR information. In the first, access to the EDGAR
system
would be strictly online; GPO and depository libraries would incur little
expense. It is assumed that GPO would add value through
sophisticated
indexing in its Locator service which would be used by the public,
libraries, and private sector information businesses alike. The FDLP
ensures that the knowledge and skills of government information
specialists

are available in all Congressional districts to assist and train members
of
the public unfamiliar with accessing federal information. In this
alternative the SEC and the public derive significant value from GPO
indexing and depository library assistance at very little expense.

A key concern with Alternative 1 is long term access to EDGAR
records.
The FDLP has traditionally guaranteed long term access to federal
publications through regional depository libraries. Alternative 1
suggests
no mechanism that will assure the ready availability of government
publications that have been provided through regionals. Though the
SEC is
engaged in negotiations with NARA to schedule retention of EDGAR
materials,
we are concerned that access to archived federal information is less
immediate through NARA than it is through regionals.

A second key concern raised in Alternative 1 is redundancy of
access--that is, the availability of access through more than one source
in
the event that the primary channel (in this case the SEC) is interrupted.
Given current Internet capacity and technology, disruptions of service
are
not uncommon. The stability of individual systems is also at best
uncertain, as typified by system crashes and power failures. This
option
provides no alternative for accessing EDGAR data in the event that the
SEC
data platform is incapacitated or regions of the country are unable to
connect via the Internet to SEC databases.

Alternative 2 proposes the tangible distribution of SEC data to
depository libraries on CD-ROMs and provides a possible solution to
both
problems of long term access and lack of redundancy. By depositing
EDGAR
data on CD-ROMs in regional depositories--or some other sub-set of
depository libraries--complete sets of EDGAR information will be
available
at no-fee from multiple sites. These libraries would accept their
traditional responsibilities for maintaining the information and
providing
it to the public either directly or through other depository libraries. As
major players in the increasingly electronic information universe, they
would bear the responsibility for migrating the data to new media as
information storage technologies evolve. In this way, multiple sites
would
provide long term access to EDGAR information resources. We
recognize that
this alternative incurs potentially significant expenses. However, the
value added by these costs in terms of the free flow of federal
information
to the public warrants the investment.

A possible third alternative would be the establishment of
partnerships between the SEC and individual libraries, library
consortia,
library associations, community networks, or other not-for-profit
organizations. In such partnerships the partner libraries would operate
under agreements with the SEC to serve as no-fee mirror sites for the
EDGAR
database; provisions for long term access would be included. The
federal
agencies responsible for guaranteeing public access to federal
information,
such as the GPO, NARA, and OMB, would provide guidance and
coordination in
drawing up such partnerships. In this alternative the value of EDGAR
is
still guaranteed to the public but at little expense to the federal
government. Partner libraries would accept this responsibility as a part
of their mission and service to their constituencies, and with the
understanding that many other libraries are embarking on similar
arrangements to provide no-fee access to other federal, state, and local
government information resources.

Overall, Alternative 2 provides needed dependability and resolves
the
important questions of long-term and redundant access associated with
the
strictly online scenario proposed in Alternative 1. However, the
increased
expenses associated with Alternative 2 may suggest that additional
models,
such as that of partnerships with no-fee mirror sites, be explored.

TASK 9B: Evaluate how United States Court of Appeals published slip
opinions might be included in the Federal Depository Library Program
(FDLP)
electronically, although they have not been a part of the FDLP in either
paper or microfiche format. (Attachment D-13)

ABSTRACT: United States Courts of Appeals slip opinions have not
previously
been included in the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). We
believe
that incorporating the electronic version of these slip opinions into the
FDLP is consistent with the view of the Senate, expressed in Senate
Report
104-114, that advances in technology provide new opportunities for
enhancing and improving public access to Government information.
The
development of depository access should be based on new and emerging
Internet technologies, and not on the outdated bulletin board systems
which
are rapidly becoming obsolete. In order to provide an electronic
product
that would be useful to the public, any option selected must be able to
guarantee the authenticity of the opinions and ensure the provision of
long
term access to this essential public information.

In a letter dated February 16, 1996, the American Association of Law
Libraries (AALL) provided comments on the Task 9B report which
investigated
the possibility of including U.S. Courts of Appeals slip opinions
electronically in the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). We
appreciate the fact that you took these comments under consideration
and
were very pleased to see that many of them were incorporated into the
latest draft Task 9B report. The Courts of Appeals slip opinions have
not,
to this date, been included in the FDLP. Incorporating electronic slip
opinions into the FDLP is a perfect example of the use of advances in
technology to provide new opportunities for enhancing and improving
public
access to Government information. (S. Rep. No. 114, 104th Cong., 1st
Sess. 48 (1995)). Our associations endorse the inclusion of the slip
opinions in the FDLP as a very positive step towards realizing the
Senate*s
goal of improved public access. Although Task 9B is limited to U.S.
Courts of Appeals slip opinions, we believe that it should serve as a
model
to provide the public with electronic no-fee access to the opinions of the
Federal District Courts as well.

Whichever alternative is ultimately selected to provide electronic
slip opinions through the FDLP, there are two important issues that
need to
be addressed. The first is authenticity. A means of guaranteeing the
authenticity of the electronic version is essential. Law is a discipline
which relies on precedent. Legal researchers, including legislators,
attorneys, law students and faculty, and the general public, should all
be
assured that the information is both reliable and the most current
authoritative version. The second issue is preservation and long term
access. In Section 4, the draft report raises certain questions that need
to be addressed yet it fails to suggest any answers. We believe that, as
technology advances, the public has the right to a seamless transition
from
the slip opinion to the final authoritative electronic version. In
addition, the government has the responsibility to ensure the
permanent
availability of the final authoritative version, at no cost to the public,
and in a format that will be usable with future technologies, as current
software and hardware become obsolete. We affirm the position
expressed in
the February 16 letter that options B and C are not viable. Both of
these
options rely on bulletin board systems (BBS), a model that has several
disadvantages. First, BBSs use a technology that is rapidly becoming
obsolete. In contrast, the Internet alternatives offer the advantages of
speed of transmission and full text searching. Second, the BBS model is
decentralized and lacks a single standard setting authority. With no
central authority, the slip opinions are likely to suffer from a lack of
standardization as it applies to file formats as well as search and
retrieval software. In addition, this lack of standardization inhibits
verification of authenticity and complicates preservation efforts.

The following comments on Alternatives A, D, and E are in addition
to
those expressed in the letter of February 16, 1996.

Alternative A: GPO ACCESS

The success of this option, to provide slip opinions through GPO
ACCESS, is dependent upon changes to Title 44 which would require
the
courts to supply GPO with the electronic slip opinions. Although the
Courts of Appeals have historically been granted a waiver from the
requirement to use the printing services of the Government Printing
Office
(GPO), such a waiver is not necessarily appropriate in an electronic
environment, and would inhibit any efforts to provide comprehensive
access
to all of the slip opinions through the FDLP. In addition, to be
effective, any such change to Title 44 must include adequate
enforcement
provisions. The use of GPO ACCESS would meet the Congressional goal
of
improving and enhancing public access to government information as
long as
GPO ACCESS remains available free of charge to the public. In
addition,
the GPO ACCESS option would provide one centralized standard setting
authority in GPO. Preservation and long term access will however,
depend
on continued long term funding of the GPO ACCESS system by the
Congress.

Alternative D: Judiciary Web Site

This option, to provide slip opinions on the Judiciary web site,
would
be an improvement over the current bulletin board systems since one
central
standard setting authority, presumably the Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts (AO), would be established. While this option would
certainly
be a technical improvement over the current decentralized system of
BBSs,
which we consider to be obsolete, no-fee public access must be ensured.
Again, preservation and long term access will depend on funding and a
commitment on the part of the AO to guarantee maintenance and
archiving of
the opinions. Alternative E: Consortium of Law Schools

The efforts of the law schools which provide Internet access to the
slip opinions are notable because the consortium is committed to
making
them available to the public free of charge. Although this model is
decentralized, there is evidence of law school cooperation (e.g., in the
development of keyword searching across sites) that could be expanded
to
include standards for authenticity, preservation and long term access.
Ultimately however, preservation and long term access will depend on
the
continued efforts of each individual law school.

TASK 10A: Review the effects of offering free public access to
STAT-USA
information products and services through the Federal Depository
Library
Program (FDLP). (Attachment D-14)

ABSTRACT: STAT-USA, a cost-recovery service within the U.S.
Department of
Commerce, produces business and economic information products,
including
the Economic Bulletin Board (EBB), the National Trade Data Bank
(NTDB) on
CD-ROM, and STAT-USA/Internet. These products are available
through the
Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), and are among the most
heavily
used electronic government information sources at depository libraries.

This task report articulates the dilemma, from an agency's
perspective, of trying to balance the competing mandates of
cost-recovery
and wide public dissemination. STAT-USA is the product of an agency
that
recognizes the value of including its information in the FDLP. But
while
the agency has cooperated with GPO to provide its products to the
public
through depository libraries, public access is restricted by current
practices and pending changes to pricing and access policies. The
federal
government should adequately fund public access to government
information
resources produced for public use, and must address the role of
cost-recovery programs in the menu of public information
dissemination
services. Competing laws mandate, in some cases, that agencies both
provide no-fee access to the public through depository libraries and at
the
same time recover costs for those same services. In addressing this
apparent dilemma for self-funded agencies, Congress should, at
minimum,
reaffirm the public's right to no-fee access to government information
through the FDLP. A broader public deliberation of the issues of "fee vs.
no-fee" must take place in order to clarify these difficult policy and
technical issues.

The list of tasks for the GPO study task groups included the key
issue
of fee-based services in the tenth task: "A review of Federal programs
permitting or requiring the sale of information to recover costs, and the
effects on efforts to assure free public access through the FDLP." This
task addresses a central policy question, where emerging technologies
are
providing both opportunities for broader access and problems in
identifying
and recovering costs. While there are many examples of programs
which fall
into this category, the study includes only two case studies, STAT-USA
(Task 10A) and MEDLINE (Task 10B). Since this is such an important
and
complex issue, it is one which requires additional data and
consideration
by Congress to reconcile conflicting policies and assure appropriate
support for programs which carry out the government's information
principles.

As a case study, the STAT-USA program is an excellent illustration of
the problems faced by an agency which operates in a fee-based
environment
and yet wishes to provide a level of access to its materials through the
FDLP. In trying to adapt the FDLP model for tangible products to the
electronic environment, STAT-USA is facing the difficulties inherent in
controlling the use of electronic information, which is easily networked
and shared and hard to contain. Because the products from STAT-USA
are
enormously useful to FDLP users, the libraries want to provide the
broadest
possible access.

Carrying the traditional FDLP model into the electronic age is more
complicated than it may seem at first. For example, the NTDB CD-ROM
includes on it about 250,000 publications. Many of these represent
materials which were formerly in the FDLP in paper. For each of these
publications, a depository library received one copy without charge; if it
wanted more copies, it could purchase them. At any one time, multiple
users might be reading many of these multiple publications in a
depository
library. If the users wished to have their own copies of materials, they
could buy them from government sources or pay for photocopies in the
library. As printing ceases and publications are bundled onto the
NTDB,
the depository library still receives one copy without charge, but now it
has thousands of publications on one CD. Unless the CD is placed on a
network, the number of possible simultaneous users of these many
publications is cut down to one. From the library point of view,
networking of the NTDB provides a level of access similar to that
provided
in the paper environment, but from the agency point of view it could
cut
into the sales which are necessary to sustain the product.

The development of STAT-USA/Internet introduces additional issues.
The Internet product is not identical to the CD-ROM. There are many
time
series and matrix tables on the CD which are not online, and these are
of
major interest to the research community, and thus should remain in
the
FDLP. But the Internet STAT-USA provides timely access and
consistent
searching, significant advantages for many FDLP users. The
establishment
of the Internet version has presented the agency with the challenge of
registering users and controlling their use of the information they
receive. The administrative problem of registering depository libraries
was solved by the cooperation of GPO's Library Programs Service, which
took
over that responsibility, and that cooperative model deserves
replication
for other agency Internet services which might be added to the program.

Controlling the use of information is more problematic, and
introduces
the issue of asking libraries to enforce copyright-like restrictions on the
use of government information which go beyond any controls libraries
needed
to impose on the use of tangible formats. Users have always been free
to
photocopy paper and fiche publications, and use the copies without
restriction. Electronic dissemination provides the opportunity for
much
easier and broader redissemination, and this could undermine the
relationship between publishing agencies and the FDLP. With paper
and
microfiche formats, no-fee use in depository libraries was not a serious
threat to the sale of materials for individuals, organizations and
businesses which wished to have the convenience of their own copies.
STAT-USA is trying to replicate that model with the provision of one
free
password for use in each depository library, but the libraries are
anxious
to provide access to more than one user at a time through networking.
Only
one person is some congressional districts with only one depository
library
would be able to access this materials at any one time under this
proposal.
Since the Internet offers the opportunity to provide public access to
government information when and where it is needed, the government
needs to
come to grips with the issue of support for that broad and beneficial
access.

This same issue was faced by the GPO itself, which like STAT-USA
had
statutory language which permitted charging reasonable fees (for users
other than depository libraries) for its online GPO Access system. After
more than a year of experience with maintaining complex registration
procedures and charging non-depository users for access, the GPO
decided to
make the entire system free to all users. The resulting changes in use
and
in costs and revenues for the GPO would provide useful additional data
and
should be incorporated into this study.

The two alternatives presented in the Task 10A report seem to imply
that the NTDB CD-ROM would remain in the depository program since
the
contents are not all covered in the Internet version and the CD-ROM
provides long-term access for information not included in the Internet
version. The only real difference between the two alternatives is where
the funding for the costs of Internet access would come from.
Alternative
A would fund depository access from other STAT-USA fees, since the
agency
no longer has sufficient appropriated funds to support FDLP
participation.
This might seem similar to universal service in the telecommunications
field, where all users pay to support basic service for those who would
not
otherwise have it. It would succeed only if libraries could limit
redissemination so that the income which supported the program was
not
destroyed, a delicate balance indeed.

Alternative B acknowledges that there is a cost to providing FDLP
access to STAT-USA, and proposes that GPO would pay for depository
access
through its appropriated funds. This option includes some cost figures
which may have been superseded by more recently-released fee
schedules from
STAT-USA, which propose higher fees for networking both the CDs and
STAT-USA/Internet. The proposal to have GPO pay for FDLP access to
fee-based government information services appears in several of the
task
reports and also in the GPO's Strategic Plan, but there seems to be little
data on the actual costs which this might incur. From the user's point
of
view, the essential issue again is that the government should fund
adequate
public access to the information resources for which the American
public
has already invested.

The "Issues to be Addressed" section of this task group articulates
the difficult problems of funding public access and the "fee vs. no-fee"
controversy. Depository librarians see the great variety of uses made of
data provided through STAT-USA, and are convinced that the public
benefits
from the broadest possible transfer of economic information, to new
and
established businesses as well as to students and researchers. To make
such information totally fee-based would be contrary to the principles
set
forth in the GPO study.

The challenge faced by agencies, the Congress, and depository
libraries is to develop a new model for access to electronic government
information, which will continue to provide the public with access to
government information which is mandated in Title 44 and reinforced
by many
other statutes and directives. The tension and even conflict between
statutes which require access and those which require cost recovery is
exacerbated by new technologies, even as those technologies provide
opportunities for more efficiency and better access. More deliberation
of
these vital public policy issues is necessary.

TASK 10B: Evaluate alternative for including the National Library of
Medicine (NLM) MEDLINE data, available as an electronic fee-based
service,
in the FDLP. (Attachment D-15)

ABSTRACT: This Task Group has bought together GPO and NLM for a
serious
discussion of the issue of providing depository libraries with access to
MEDLINE. Further discussions should take place regarding NLM's
proposal
for a pilot project with a limited number of depository libraries. Since
Grateful Med is now available through the Internet, that option should
be
explored further. Costs of providing this access can be more accurately
assessed after a pilot activity.

There currently exist many access points for health sciences
librarians, health professionals, health sciences students, and
historians
to use the library's resources. All hospitals and medical schools offer
access to MEDLINE and other database resources and Grateful Med is
designed
specifically for the end-user searcher. In addition, many public
libraries
offer CD-ROM or other access to these files. The transition to an
electronic environment in this case might well involve an examination
of
existing offerings of this information and may well present depository
libraries and the FDLP the opportunity to explore cooperative
arrangements
with NLM for services and training.

Attachment N:

Comments from the National Commission on Libraries and Information
Science

Attachment N

Comments from the National Commission on Libraries and Information
Science

Statement of April 18, 1996

On April 18, 1996, there was a meeting of the FDLP Study working
group
and advisors in order to provide the advisors with an opportunity to
present their preliminary reactions on the draft Report to Congress.
The
minutes of the meeting are provided as Attachment J. This is the
supplemental statement submitted by the National Commission on
Libraries
and Information Science (NCLIS).

Preliminary Comments
Joan R. Challinor, Member
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science

628 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
April 18, 1996
2:00 p.m.

A. Introduction

The U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
(NCLIS) is pleased to provide these preliminary comments on the draft
Study
Report./1/ Jeanne Hurley Simon, Chairperson of the National
Commission
regrets that she is not able to be here this afternoon to offer these
comments. Jeanne is in Illinois today participating in a program at
Southern Illinois University.

/1/ U.S. Government Printing Office. Report to Congress: Study to
Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More
Electronic Federal Depository Library Program. (Draft) Washington,
D.C.: GPO, 1996.

Our comments result from an initial review of the draft Study Report
by the members of the Commission's Information Policies Committee,
chaired
by Commissioner Carol K. DiPrete of Providence, Rhode Island.
Because the
members of the National Commission have not yet had the opportunity
to
fully review and discuss the draft Study Report, these preliminary
comments
do not reflect NCLIS' official endorsement. NCLIS will submit
additional
comments in the next several weeks, once the full Commission has had
a
chance to review and discuss the issues included in the Report./2/

/2/ The Commission later determined that no further comments were
necessary.

The National Commission appreciates the opportunity to comment
on this
draft Study Report. Congress displayed strong leadership in directing
the
Public Printer to study the potential of new electronic technologies for
improving public access and use of government information. Actions
based
on the study's results and conclusions, however, should balance
Congressional concerns for cost efficiencies with basic principles
regarding the creation, access, use, and dissemination of government
information.

The draft Study Report represents a significant contribution to the
future of the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). The
Government
Printing Office (GPO) and the Working Group are to be commended for
their
efforts to address complex issues related to effective public access to
government information. The draft Study Report reflects a thoughtful
review of the opportunities for enhancing public access to government
information. Although the Study was conducted within strictly
mandated
time constraints, implementation planning requires careful planning
and
analysis to ensure effective public access to government information.
Collaborative transition planning involving Congress, GPO, and the
National
Commission could serve as a model for improving and enhancing public
access
to Federal government information.

The Commission's comments address the following areas:

1. The National Commission's Principles of Public Information;

2. Results of recent NCLIS surveys of public library Internet
involvement;

3. The Commission's interest to assist with a FDLP implementation
study;

4. NCLIS' general concerns about citizen access to federal information.

As background, first let me give you an quick overview of NCLIS'
statutory purpose and some information about the Commission's role in
developing the Principles of Public Information.

B. Background on the Commission

The National Commission was established in 1970 (P.L. 91-345) as
an
independent Federal agency to advise the President and the Congress
on
national and international policies and plans related to libraries and
information services. The Commission consists of 14 members who are
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for five-year
terms.
Only five NCLIS members are professional librarians or information
professionals, the remainder are those persons having special
competence or
interest in the needs of our society for library and information services.
The Librarian of Congress serves as the 15th Commission member.
NCLIS is a
small micro-agency, with an annual federal appropriation of less than
$1
million a year. The Commission receives additional support for
cooperative
programs with the Department of Education and the State Department.

The Commission's mission as stated in the enabling legislation has
been broadly interpreted in our 25-year history. By law, NCLIS
develops
plans and recommendations for the implementation of national policies
related to library and information services adequate to meet the needs
of
the people of the US. Commission activities are designed to assure
optimum
and effective utilization of the Nation's educational and information
resources. The National Commission does not represent the interests
and
concerns of the library and information community. As a citizens'
advisory
body, NCLIS represents the public's interest.

C. Principles of Public Information

Throughout the Commission's history, national information policy
issues have occupied NCLIS. In the 1970's, NCLIS published the
Rockefeller
report on National Information Policy./3/ This 1976 report called for the
development of a coordinated national information policy. The
rationale
for this report was stated as follows:

/3/ Domestic Council Committee on the Right of Privacy, Honorable
Nelson A.
Rockefeller, Chairman. National Information Policy: Report to the
President. Washington, D.C.: NCLIS, 1976.

"A great number of public policy questions are being generated by
advances in computer and communications technology, by shifts in
the
United States economy from a manufacturing to an information
base, and
by citizen demands for clarification of their rights to have and
control information."

These same concerns are reflected in GPO's March 1996 draft Study
Report. Over the last two decades NCLIS has studied many of the
public
policy questions presented in the Rockefeller report. As a result, the
Commission developed the Principles of Public Information in response
to a
1988 Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) report titled Informing the
Nation: Federal Information Dissemination in an Electronic Age./4/ This
report addressed opportunities to improve the dissemination of federal
information by highlighting problems of maintaining equity of public
access
to federal information in electronic formats and by defining the
respective
roles of federal agencies and the private sector in the electronic
dissemination process.

/4/ Office of Technology Assessment. Informing the Nation: Federal
Information Dissemination in an Electronic Age. Washington, D.C.:
OTA,
1988.

After an NCLIS-sponsored public forum held in 1989 to review policy
issues raised in the OTA report, the Commission worked to develop a
consensus among interested parties as to the basic, underlying
principles
that should shape all decisions in and out of government regarding
information policies, procedures and practices. These principles were
developed to provide guidance for the formulation of national
information
policies.

The Commission's work resulted in a statement of Principles of
Public
Information, adopted by NCLIS July 29, 1990. I will not review these
eight
statements because they are included as Attachment E to the March
1996
draft Study Report. The eight principles were constructed as an
interrelated whole. They are intended to form a foundation for
decisions
and policies throughout the federal government. Each principle should
be
considered in relationship to all the others; one is not more important
than another.

As a means of providing comparative information about government
information principles the Commission has prepared a handout for
distribution. It's a chart showing the Commission's Principles of Public
Information, the Principles of Government Information and Services
from A
NATION OF OPPORTUNITY, the final report of the NII Advisory
Council,/5/ and
the Principles for Federal Government Information from the present
draft
Study Report on the FDLP./6/ The chart illustrates the similarity
between
these three different sets of principles. Each articulation underscores
important concerns about the accessibility, usability and reliability of
government or federal information resources.

/5/ U.S. Advisory Council on the National Information Infrastructure.
A
Nation of Opportunity: Realizing the Promise of the Information
Superhighway. West Publishing, 1996.

/6/ U.S. Government Printing Office. Report to Congress: Study to
Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More
Electronic Federal Depository Library Program. (Draft) Washington,
D.C.: GPO, 1996.

Also, these three sets of principles reflect the same values that form
the basis for our democratic society. What is critical about each of
these
statements of principles related to public or government information is
the
focus of attention on the needs of the user or the public. The principles
underlying the dissemination of federal information are formed from
the
perspective of the user or the citizen who requires and is entitled to
have
"open, timely, and uninhibited" access to public information. This user
perspective and orientation are essential to guide plans for a successful
transition to a more electronic future program.

D. Findings from NCLIS studies of public libraries and the Internet

An overview of the results of several recent studies/7/ that the
Commission has sponsored on public libraries and the Internet
provides
background. Our first study, in 1994, found that 20.9% of the nation's
libraries had Internet connections. Our 1996 study shows that
percentage
has increased to 44.6%.

/7/ McClure, Charles R., John Carlo Bertot and Douglas L. Zweizig.
Public
Libraries and the Internet: Study Results, Policy Issues, and
Recommendations. Washington, D.C.: NCLIS, 1994. Electronic
version:
http://www.nclis.gov; and McClure, Charles R., John Carlo Bertot and
John C. Beachboard. Internet Costs and Cost Models for Public
Libraries: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: NCLIS, 1995. Electronic
version: http://dataserver.syr.edu/~macbeth/Project/Faculty/
McClure.NCLIS.Report.html

Public Library Internet Connectivity by Population Served 1994-1996

Population of % Public Libraries Connected
Legal Service Area/8/ 1994 1996
1 million + 77% 82%
500,000-999,999 64% 93.1%
250,000-499,999 76% 96.1%
100,000-249,999 54.4% 88.2%
50,000-99,999 43.7% 75%
25,000-49,999 27.6% 73.1%
10,000-24,999 23.2% 53.1%
5,000-9,999 12.9% 40.6%
Less than 5,000 13.3% 31.3%

Total Public Libraries Connected 20.9% 44.6%

/8/ Population of legal service area is the number of people in the
geographic area for which a public library has been established to
offer services and from which (or on behalf of which) the library
derives income, plus an areas served under contract for which the
library is the primary service provider.

The 23.7% increase in public library Internet connectivity between
1994 and 1996 provides strong evidence of the rapid pace of change
that is
characteristic of electronic networked information and communication
technologies. Plans for a transition to a more electronic FDLP must
address this extremely rapid pace of change. The rapid pace of change
is
further reinforced by public libraries responding to the 1996 NCLIS
survey
question regarding their plans for connecting to the Internet over the
next
12 months:

Public Library Internet Connectivity Plans by Population Served 1996

Population of % Planning Connections
Legal Service Area Yes/Staff Yes/Public No Plans
1 million + 0% /9/ 0% 0%
500,000-999,999 2.4% 6.9% 0%
250,000-499,999 2% 4.2% 0%
100,000-249,999 4.7% 12.9% 0.9%
50,000-99,999 7.5% 13.4% 4.3%
25,000-49,999 9% 12.5% 8.1%
10,000-24,999 10.4% 20.6% 16.9%
5,000-9,999 11% 26.8% 22.2%
Less than 5,000 8.3% 26.6% 31.3%

Public Library Connectivity Plans 16.3% 40.4% 39.6%

/9/ Those public libraries that are not now connected to the Internet and
did not respond or responded that hey are not planning to connect to
the Internet are represented by 0%.

Of those public libraries that reported no Internet connection in
1996, 16.3% indicate that they plan to establish connections in the next
12
months for library staff use only. In addition, 40.4% of public libraries
with no Internet connection in 1996 report that they are planning to
provide public access Internet services in the next year. From these
survey results it appears that public library Internet connectivity could
well reach between 60% and 75% by 1997.

For those public libraries that provide public access to Internet
services in 1996, institutions serving larger populations were more
likely
to provide public access to WWW graphical services than libraries
serving
smaller communities. NCLIS 1996 survey information about the types
of
Internet services provided by public libraries to the public is
summarized
in the following table:

Public Access Internet Services Provided by Public Libraries 1996

Population E-mail NewsGroup WWWtext WWWgraphic
Gopher Svcs
1 million + 13.9% 13.0% 33.8% 54.6% 32.9%
500,000-999,999 11.3% 11.3% 46.3% 44.7% 45.7%
250,000-499,999 10.0% 8.8% 39.8% 33.9% 35.0%
100,000-249,999 10.3% 20.3% 37.9% 42.7% 34.8%
50,000-99,999 4.8% 15.5% 28.5% 29.2% 29.4%
25,000-49,999 9.2% 13.2% 25.1% 28.1% 24.3%
10,000-24,999 9.8% 13.6% 23.0% 27.6% 24.8%
5,000-9,999 10.0% 5.7% 15.9% 17.5% 14.4%
Less than 5,000 12.1% 9.6% 15.7% 13.9% 17.8%
Overall 9.9% 11.6% 22.2% 23.6% 22.6%

Those public libraries that provide public access to Internet and that
serve smaller legal service area populations are less likely to offer
advanced WWW graphical services. This finding has important
consequences
for planning a more electronic FDLP. It would appear that states with
more
rural populations served by smaller public libraries will have greater
dependence on depository libraries to offer electronic access to
government
information.

In addition to the 1994 and 1996 surveys of penetration of Internet
access, in 1995 the Commission studied the costs of public library
connections to the Internet. The NCLIS Internet cost study showed that
public libraries are establishing Internet connections for one-time costs
that vary between $1,475 and $266,375, with recurring costs between
$12,635
and $154,220. With investments and annual costs of this magnitude, it
is
important to consider the investments required for depository libraries
to
implement a transition to a more electronic FDLP. Focusing attention
on
the costs of the transition is critical since depository libraries will
have to address public needs for accessing federal information in print,
microformat, as well as electronic media.

The National Commission plans to provide additional information
regarding the costs of public library Internet connectivity in subsequent
comments on the draft Study Report in the next few weeks as the
results of
the NCLIS 1996 public libraries and the Internet survey are analyzed
and
made available./10/

/10/ Information on the survey was provided to GPO, but not as formal
comments on the FDLP Study, so it is not included in this report.
The
survey results are available on the NCLIS World Wide Web site at
http://www.nclis.gov.

These three NCLIS studies provide information useful in developing
plans related to the transition to a more electronic federal depository
library system. As dissemination of government information
increasingly
involves electronic technologies, libraries will be required to receive,
interpret, and research that information for their constituents.
Depository library costs associated with this transition may not be
comparable to current contributions and investments, and may require
additional commitments from a restructured FDLP. The Commission
will
provide additional pertinent details from the 1996 survey of public
libraries and the Internet when further comments are submitted on the
draft
Study Report in the next few weeks.10

E. Implementation study of transition to a more electronic FDLP

The access needs of the general public for federal information should
guide the development of transition plans and strategies. Successful
plans
and strategies require current, reliable, and consistent information
about
federal agency and depository library capabilities, as well as
information
about how the public's need for convenient and inexpensive access to
government information can be effectively addressed with electronic
technologies.

The fast pace of technological change presents challenges for
successful transition planning. This need for planning information can
be
addressed by collaborative efforts involving the National Commission,
Congress, and GPO. Survey information about current agency and
depository
library capabilities are needed to provide assistance and coordination
in
identifying appropriate technical implementation assistance for
transition
to a restructured FDLP. Planners need assistance in gathering survey
data
and performing related analysis as background information for
successful
plans.

In this regard, the Commission finds that a two-year transition
period
is insufficient to ensure successful transition. Such an abbreviated
implementation period would risk serious impediments for public
access to
government information. The rapid pace of change, both in network
communications technologies and in library adoption of advanced
electronic
information services, requires a longer transition period. A more
reasonable implementation planning period for such a transition would
be
five years, from 1996 to 2001, as has been proposed in Federal
Depository
Library Program: Information Dissemination and Access Strategic Plan,
FY
1996 - FY 2001.

F. Evaluation of how well the public's need for access to public
information is being met

The draft Study Report provides a valuable planning document to
provide the American public with greater access to government
information
in electronic form through a restructured FDLP. It is important to
consider these plans within a broad government-wide context. As
individual
agencies, offices, and programs make expanded use of the Internet and
World
Wide Web publishing capabilities, mounting home pages and opening
sites,
challenges related to preservation, authenticity, access, cost, and
locator
service increase.

This decentralized proliferation of government information
dissemination and publishing has a direct impact on public access.
There
must be evaluation of how well the publics' need for access to public
information is being addressed through the federal depository library
program, in relation to the publics' use of the GPO Access Service, the
Library of Congress' THOMAS system, through agencies Government
Information
Locator Service (GILS), through agencies Internet gopher sites, World
Wide
Web (WWW) home pages, and by other electronic means. Cooperative
projects
involving the National Commission could study and analyze these
contextual
issues relating to public access to government information and services
in
order to recommend plans that address the user's needs for access. In
this
area, NCLIS has explored plans for evaluating the effectiveness of GILS
over the past year in meeting the public's need for locating and
accessing
government information from a variety of different sources.

While concerns regarding dissemination format are justified, the
future structure, design, and effectiveness of a more electronic FDLP
need
to be seen from the user's perspective. The transition from a legacy of
paper and microfiche to digital transmission will have important
consequences on patterns of access to government information. The
transition to a more electronic FDLP involves more than a single
dimension
of change from ink-on-paper document distribution to document
transmission
via electronic networks. Understanding the implications of this
transition
on public use of government information is critical for the future. We
must work to assure the right and responsibility of every American to
be
informed as Thomas Jefferson identified in 1816.

[The table on the following page was submitted as part of the NCLIS
statement.]

Submitted by:
Peter R. Young
Executive Director
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
1110 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 820
Washington, D.C. 20005

Principles of Public Information

US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
29 June 1990

1. The public has the right of access to public information.

2. The Federal Government should guarantee the integrity and
preservation
of public information, regardless of its format.

3. The Federal Government should guarantee the dissemination,
reproduction, and redistribution of public information.

4. The Federal Government should safeguard the privacy of persons
who use
or request information, as well as persons about whom information
exists in
government records.

5. The Federal Government should ensure a wide diversity of sources of
access, private as well as governmental, to public information.

6. The Federal Government should not allow cost to obstruct the
people's
access to public information.

7. The Federal Government should ensure that information about
government
information is easily available and in a single index accessible in a
variety of formats.

8. The Federal Government should guarantee the public's access to
public
information, regardless of where they live and work, through national
networks and programs like the Depository Library Program.

Nation of Opportunity Principles of Government Information and
Services

US Adivisory Council on the National Information Infrastructure
January 1996

Government information, including records of the actions of
government,
should be conveniently accessible to all persons, utilizing information
infrastructure capabilities whenever feasible and appropriate. (1)

The public should be given an opportunity to contribute meaningfully
to
decisions affecting government information and services over
information
infrastructures. (9)

Government entities must ensure and protect the quality, integrity, and
security of government information and services over information
infrastructures and provide appropriate preservation and archiving of
government information to ensure continued useability and
availability.
(6)

Government should safeguard the privacy of persons about whom
information
exists in government records, as well as persons who use or request
government information. (7)

Government should encourage the widest possible cost effective
dissemination of government information in wide diversity of formats
and
sources. (4)

Government should encourage the private sector to take the lead in
providing value-added information and services over information
infrastructures. (5)

The Federal Government should not charge for making its information
available on the Information Superhighway nor charge for access the
that
information. Hard copy material, when available, should continue to be
distributed under existing practices. (3)

Government services should be accessible to all persons eligible for
such
services, utilizing information infratstructure capabilities wherever
feasible and appropriate. (2)

Government employees, and ideally all individuals, should be educated
and
trained regarding their rights and responsibilities under existing
information laws. (8)

Principles for Federal Government Information

GPO Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition
to a
More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program 29 March
1996

Principle 1: The public has the right of access to government
information.

Principle 2: Government has an obligation to disseminate and provide
broad
public access to its information.

Principle 3: Government has an obligation to guarantee the authenticity
and
integrity of its information.

Principle 4: Government has an obligation to preserve its information.

Principle 5: Government information created or complied by
government
employees or at government expense should remain in the public
domain.

Exhibit 1:

Federal Depository Library Program:
Information Dissemination and Access Strategic Plan,
FY 1996 - FY 2001

Exhibit 1

FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM:Information
Dissemination
and Access Strategic Plan, FY 1996 - FY 2001

Prepared For

STUDY TO IDENTIFY MEASURES NECESSARY
FOR A SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION TO A MORE ELECTRONIC
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM

As Required By
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996

Public Law 104-53

June 1996

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-i

Principles for Federal Government Information . . . . . . E-iii

Mission and Goals for the Federal Depository Library Program. E-iv

Basic Assumptions for the Information Dissemination and Access
Strategic
Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-v

Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-vi

I. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

II. Approach to Electronic Dissemination and Access . . . . E-2

Major Transition Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-2
Assessment of Standards for Creation and Dissemination of
Electronic
Government Information Products . . . . . . . . . . . .E-3
Government Information Products in the FDLP . . . . . . E-4
Incorporating Government Information Products in the FDLP.E-4
Role of the GPO Access Service . . . . . . . . . . . . E-5
Making New Information Available through the FDLP . . . E-5
Reducing Duplication of Product Content . . . . . . . . E-6
Cataloging and Locator Services . . . . . . . . . . . . E-6
Permanent Access Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-7
Legal Changes Which Support the Transition. . . . . . . E-8

III. Depository Library Roles and Service Expectations. E-8

Strengthening the Federal Depository Library Program . E-8
Role of Regional and Selective Depository Libraries . . E-8
Depository Library Service Expectations . . . . . . . . E-9
Technology Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-10
Training Efforts and Regional Librarians' Conference. . E-10
New Focus for the Inspection Program. . . . . . . . . . E-10
Access to Electronic Government Information Products through
Public
Libraries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E-11

IV. Administrative and Support Activities . . . . . . . . . E-11

Superintendent of Documents Classification System . . . E-11
Notification of Electronic Government Information Products in the
FDLP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E-12
Use of Item Numbers for Electronic Government Information
Products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E-12
Future Distribution of Tangible Government Information
Products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E-12

V. Impact of this Plan on other SOD Programs . . . . . . . E-12

By-Law Distribution Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-13
International Exchange System Program . . . . . . . . . E-13
Sales of Publications Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-14

List of Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-15

Appendix A: Paper Titles in the FDLP - Core List . . E-17

Appendix B: FDLP System Requirements for Electronic
Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E-19

Appendix C: Transition Chronology. . . . . . . . . . E-21

Appendix D: Incorporating Agency Information Products in the
FDLP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E-25

FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM:
Information Dissemination and Access
Strategic Plan, FY 1996 - FY 2001

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Strategic Plan focuses on the role of the Government Printing
Office (GPO), as the administrator of the Federal Depository Library
Program (FDLP), and the changes in the FDLP that will occur during the
period from the remainder of FY 1996 through the end of FY 2001.
Because
it is such an integral part of the FDLP, the plan also addresses the
Cataloging and Indexing Program./1/ This plan is one component of the
report to Congress entitled Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a
Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library
Program (FDLP Study Report),/2/ and it is included as an Exhibit in that
report.

/1/ Other SOD programs have been considered briefly within the context
of
this plan with the conclusion that changes in the transition to a more
electronic FDLP will have less dramatic effects on the By-Law
Distribution Program, the International Exchange System (IES)
Program
and the Sales of Publications Program. Additional evaluation and
planning will be needed to determine the impact of changes in agency
publishing practices on these programs, but that is not within the
scope of this plan.

/2/ In August 1995, the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), as
required
by the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law
104-53),
initiated a cooperative study to identify measures necessary for a
successful transition to a more electronic Federal Depository Library
Program. Congress directed that the study include a strategic plan
that could assist the Congress in redefining a new and strengthened
Federal information dissemination policy and program. The study
concluded in March 1996, and a draft report was issued in order to
provide an extended opportunity for public comment. The final
report,
including this Strategic Plan, was issued in June 1996.

By emphasizing the incorporation of electronic information
products
into the FDLP, this plan affirmatively moves the FDLP toward a more
electronic information dissemination and access program. While this
plan
builds upon the December 1995 Electronic Federal Depository Library
Program: Transition Plan FY 1996 - FY 1998, submitted with the GPO
FY 1997
appropriations request, it incorporates numerous changes which reflect
the
views and advice of the library community, Federal publishing agencies,
and
users of Government information.

The FDLP provides official Government information products in a
variety of formats to the nation's over 1,380 depository libraries. The
FDLP endeavors to ensure that all Government information products
within
the scope of the program are available for no fee public access.
Incorporating more electronic Government information into the FDLP
will
augment the traditional distribution of tangible products with
connections
to remotely accessible Government electronic information services.
Electronic information will be accessible to the public at or through
depository libraries from a distributed system, administered by GPO, of
Government electronic information services from other Government
agencies,
or from institutions acting as agents for the Government. The preferred
method for incorporating additional electronic information into the
FDLP
will be to point and link to the electronic information services of other
agencies. When this is not possible, GPO will obtain electronic source
files from agencies for mounting on GPO Access. Tangible Government
information products will continue to be distributed to libraries,
including CD-ROM discs, diskettes, paper or microfiche, as appropriate
to
the needs of users and the intended usage.

Permanent access to Government information products is a critical
issue in the electronic environment. GPO, as the administrator of the
FDLP, will coordinate a distributed system that provides continuous,
permanent public access to Government information products within
the scope
of the program, in the same spirit in which regional depository libraries
provide permanent access to tangible information products. This will
require coordination with all of the institutional program stakeholders:
information producing agencies, GPO, depository libraries and the
National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

Effective public use of Government information, especially in the
less-structured environment of the Internet, depends on the users'
ability
to identify and locate desired information. Through the continuation of
its cataloging services, and the development of the suite of Pathway
locator services, GPO can meet this need.

Use of electronic Government information products also can be
enhanced
by the greater utilization of standards in the creation and
dissemination
of information. Therefore, GPO is proposing an Assessment of
Standards for
Creation and Dissemination of Electronic Government Information
through a
joint effort with the National Commission on Libraries and Information
Science (NCLIS).

Following successful completion of the assessment, GPO will survey
depository libraries to assess the technological capabilities of both
libraries and the public to access and utilize Government information
products in the electronic formats identified by the assessment. The
survey also will determine the technological skills of depository staff,
equipment already available in depository libraries, and the cost
implications for depository libraries and users in accessing and
utilizing
Government information products provided through the FDLP.

Significant progress toward a more electronic FDLP can be made by
the
end of FY 1998 with essentially flat funding. For the out years, FY 1999
and beyond, there are too many variables involved to accurately project
program funding requirements at this time. GPO's FY 1997 funding
request
of $30.8 million for the Superintendent of Documents (SOD) Salaries
and
Expense Appropriation assumed that some FDLP expenses, especially
those
associated with acquiring and shipping tangible products, would
decline as
the use of electronic information dissemination technologies increases.
However, there will be offsetting cost increases in other areas, such as
expanding the capacity of the GPO Access service, acquiring and
converting
electronic source files, CD-ROM software licensing fees, etc.

An effective transition to a more electronic FDLP would be facilitated
by certain changes to existing law. Recommendations for legislative
changes to 44 U.S.C. Chapter 19 are included in the FDLP Study Report
in
the report for Task 6 (Attachment D-5).

Also included in this plan is a brief discussion of the changing roles
of regional and selective depository libraries with respect to electronic
Government information products, and the type and level of public
service
and access that depository libraries will be required to provide in the
future.

PRINCIPLES FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

GPO's tactical and strategic planning for the future of the FDLP, as
well as the work on the FDLP Study, have been guided by a set of
fundamental principles regarding Federal Government information.

1. The Public Has the Right of Access to Government Information

Access to Government information, except where restricted by law, is
a
basic right of every American citizen. Open and unrestricted access
to Government information ensures that the public has the
opportunity
to monitor and participate in the full range of Government activities.

2. The Government Has an Obligation to Disseminate and Provide
Broad
Public Access to its Information

The Government should encourage public participation in the
democratic
process and use of Government information through proactive
dissemination efforts that ensure timely and equitable public access.

3. The Government Has an Obligation to Guarantee the Authenticity
and
Integrity of Its Information

These obligations, which are met in well-established ways in the
print
world, pose difficult issues in the electronic information
environment.

4. The Government Has an Obligation to Preserve its Information

Preservation and permanent public access are vital components of
the
national historical record. Preservation should be considered from
the earliest stages of the information life cycle.

5. Government Information Created or Compiled by Government
Employees or
at Government Expense Should Remain in the Public Domain

Use or reuse of Government information should not be diminished
by
copyright-like restrictions, which serve to reduce the economic
benefits or "multiplier effects" associated with unrestricted usage.

MISSION AND GOALS FOR THE FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY
PROGRAM

Within these broad principles, the FDLP Study has identified the
mission
and goals for the FDLP. This Strategic Plan incorporates several
different
efforts and approaches to achieving these goals.

FDLP Mission

The mission of the Federal Depository Library Program is to provide
equitable, efficient, timely, and dependable no-fee public access to
Federal Government information within the scope of the program.

FDLP Goals

1. Ensure that the public has equitable, no fee, local public access to
Government information products through a centrally managed,
statutorily authorized network of geographically dispersed
depository
libraries.

2. Use new information technologies to improve public access to
Government
information and expand the array of Government information
products
and Government electronic information services made available
through
the FDLP.

3. Provide Government information products in formats appropriate to
the
needs of users and the intended usage.

4. Enable the public to locate Government information regardless of
format.

5. Ensure both timely, current public access and permanent, future
public
access to Government information products at or through depository
libraries, without copyright-like restrictions on the use or reuse of
that information.

6. Facilitate preservation of Government information through the
National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

7. Ensure that the program is cost-effective for all parties involved,
including Government publishing agencies, GPO, depository
libraries,
and the public.

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
AND ACCESS
STRATEGIC PLAN

1. An increasing proportion of the Government information products
provided to the public through the FDLP will utilize electronic
information dissemination and access technologies.

2. Electronic information will become the preferred medium for
dissemination of, and access to, Government information products
through the FDLP, although distribution of paper or microfiche will
continue when appropriate for users or intended usage.

3. Including electronic Government information products in the FDLP
offers
opportunities to make more information locally available to the
public, with enhanced functionality.

4. An enhanced system is needed to ensure permanent public access to
electronic Government information products through the FDLP.
Such a
system must include all of the institutional program stakeholders:
information producing agencies, GPO, depository libraries and
NARA.

5. The GPO Access services authorized by Public Law 103-40 are the
foundation for providing electronic access to Government
information
through the FDLP.

6. An enhanced system is needed to ensure the persistent identification
and description of Government information products available via
Government electronic information services.

7. Direct, no fee access to Government information products will be
provided to the public through the GPO Access services as a function
of the FDLP, and will be funded by the program.

8. When an agency is required by law to charge for access to its
electronic Government information service in order to recover costs,
GPO will seek to reimburse the agency for access to its electronic
information products at no cost to depository libraries.

9. Some depository libraries need financial assistance in order to serve
the public in an electronic FDLP environment. GPO has requested
$500,000 for "technology grants" in FY 1997 to provide such
assistance.

10. Certain legislative changes to 44 U.S.C. Chapter 19 would facilitate
this transition. These are identified in the FDLP Study Report in the
report for Task 6 (Attachment D-5).

11. This transition requires funding the Superintendent of Documents
Salaries and Expenses (S&E) appropriation at approximately the FY
1996
level through FY 1998. Any cost increases associated with expanding
the role of electronic Government information in the FDLP will be
funded by reducing distribution of paper and microfiche.
DEFINITIONS

The following definitions are provided to clarify the meaning of several
important words and phrases as used in this report. Unless otherwise
noted, in this plan "Government" always refers to the Government of the
United States.

/3/ "Government information" has a significantly broader meaning in the
context of Federal records.

"Permanent access" means that Government information products
within the
scope of the FDLP remain available for continuous, no fee public access
through the program./4/ For emphasis, the phrase "permanent public
access"
is sometimes used with the same definition.

/4/ Permanent access is required by 44 U.S.C. 1911: "Depository
libraries
not served by a regional depository library, or that are regional
depository libraries themselves, shall retain Government
publications
permanently in either printed form or in microfacsimile form, except
superseded publications or those issued later in bound form..." In the
case of tangible information products, permanent access remains a
responsibility of regional depository libraries, while in the case of
remotely accessible Government information products, it is a
responsibility of GPO to coordinate a distributed system that
provides
continuous, permanent public access.

FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM:
Information Dissemination and Access
Strategic Plan, FY 1996 - FY 2001

I. BACKGROUND

/1/ Other SOD programs have been considered briefly within the context
of
this plan with the conclusion that changes in the transition to a more
electronic FDLP will have minimal effect on other SOD programs, i.e.,
the By-Law Distribution Program, the International Exchange System
(IES) Program and the Sales of Publications Program. These
programs
need additional evaluation and planning for the impact of changes in
agency publishing practices, but that is not within the scope of this
plan.

/2/ In August, 1995, the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), as
required by the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public
Law
104-53), initiated a cooperative study to identify measures necessary
for a successful transition to a more electronic Federal Depository
Library Program. Congress directed that the study include a strategic
plan that could assist the Congress in redefining a new and
strengthened Federal information dissemination policy and program.
The
study was concluded in March 1996, and a draft report was issued in
order to provide an extended opportunity for public comment. The
final
report, including this Strategic Plan, was issued in June 1996.

By emphasizing the incorporation of electronic information products
into the FDLP, this Strategic Plan affirmatively moves the FDLP toward
a
more electronic information dissemination and access program. While
this
plan builds upon the December 1995 Electronic Federal Depository
Library
Program: Transition Plan FY 1996 - FY 1998, submitted with the GPO
FY 1997
appropriations request, it incorporates numerous changes which reflect
the
views and advice of the library community, Federal publishing agencies,
and
users of Government information.

The Superintendent of Documents (SOD) Library Programs Service
(LPS)
is responsible for administering the FDLP in partnership with over
1,380
participating libraries nationwide, as authorized under Title 44 of the
U.S. Code. There are three major areas in which the FDLP can extend
its
traditional role into the electronic environment:

- Provide no fee public access to all Government information
products
which fall within the scope of the FDLP.

- Through cataloging and locator services, enable the public to access
the full range of Federal Government information made available
through the program.

- Ensure that FDLP Government information products are
maintained
permanently for public access.

These are not new directions; they have been the cornerstones of the
FDLP for many years. However, as the program changes from the
delivery of
mostly print products to incorporate more

electronic information dissemination and access, all of the program
partners are faced with new opportunities and challenges to their
abilities
to accomplish these goals in a very different and rapidly- changing
environment.

The FDLP strives to ensure that the general public has access to a
broad range of Government information maintained for a long period of
time.
For print or microfiche products, this information is cataloged so that it
can be found by potential users. It is housed in local depository
libraries which provide public access at the community level.
Professional
Government information librarians assist individuals in locating the
information they need. The costs to depository libraries have been
estimated at three to five times the dollar value of the information
products that they receive./3/ The FDLP exemplifies how a Federal
program
utilizing state and local support can serve the public through shared
responsibilities and shared costs.

/3/ Robert E. Dugan and Ellen M. Dodsworth, "Costing Out a
Depository
Library: What Free Government Information?" Government
Information
Quarterly, Volume 11, Number 3 (1994), pages 261-284.

Electronic information dissemination via the Internet, on CD-ROM
discs, or using successor technologies, offers potential economies for
the
Government as a whole. However, the greatest savings will accrue to
those
agencies which embrace publishing via the Internet. As the initial
publishing costs to Government decline, the costs to libraries and the
public for computers, training, and connections, as well as costs to the
Government for providing permanent access may increase. Similarly,
local
printing of on demand copies, often using costly and environmentally
unfriendly technologies, will mean that users who want their own
copies may
pay more than when costs were kept in check by GPO's efficient and
effective printing procurement process.

In addition, depository librarians will be acting in new roles,
serving as intermediaries helping the public find Federal electronic
information and providing access to that information on site and via
electronic gateways. Depository libraries also will continue to select,
receive, and service tangible Government information products while
expanding their capability to handle electronic information. Many
depository libraries must upgrade their capabilities in order to serve
the
public effectively in a more electronic FDLP, and this affects the speed
at
which a successful transition can occur. The transition to a more
electronic FDLP must not result in disenfranchising portions of the
public
which need more time to adapt to the new technologies.

II. APPROACH TO ELECTRONIC DISSEMINATION AND ACCESS

Major Transition Activities

Implementation of this plan will be accomplished utilizing a project
approach. Major project areas and goals for near-term transition
implementation include:

Information Dissemination Services

Goal: To incorporate in the FDLP Government information products
available via Federal agency Internet sites and increase the array of
products disseminated to depository libraries and the general public
via GPO Access.

Cataloging and Locator Services

Goal: To provide locator services to direct depository libraries and
the general public to Government information products available via
Government electronic information services, including development
of
the suite of Pathway indexer and Browse functions.

Permanent Access Services

Goal: To establish a distributed system for ensuring that
Government
information products available via Government electronic
information
services are maintained permanently for public access through the
FDLP.

Depository Roles and Services

Goal: To support and monitor depository library services, with a
view
toward improving the public's ability to access all Government
information through the FDLP.

Assessment of Standards for Creation and Dissemination of Electronic
Government Information Products

In addition, GPO is proposing an Assessment of Standards for
Creation
and Dissemination of Electronic Government Information Products
through a
joint effort with the National Commission on Libraries and Information
Science (NCLIS). For the successful implementation of a more
electronic
FDLP, the Congress, GPO and the depository library community must
have
additional information about future agency publishing plans, as well as
an
expert evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and usefulness of various
electronic formats that may be utilized for depository library
dissemination or access. A central implementation issue is the
identification and utilization of standards for creation and
dissemination
of electronic Government information products. These standards
would
enhance access to and use of Government information by both the
Government
and the public. The Government produces an enormous quantity and
variety
of information. The standards best suited for one type of data may be
substantially less suited, or even entirely inappropriate, for another.
Consequently, there is no single standard in which all Government
information products can, or should, be created or disseminated.
Nevertheless, it is in the best interest of the Government, and those
who
use Government information, to achieve a greater degree of
standardization
than now exists, and to develop recommended standards for each major
type
of Government information product in order to facilitate the exchange
and
use of that information.

To accomplish this, it is first necessary to know the range of formats
Federal agencies currently use in the creation and dissemination of
information and to assess the de facto or actual standards that are in
use
for each major type of data. It is also necessary to identify areas where
there is no standardization, or such limited standardization that the
effect is virtually the same. Finally, it would be useful to evaluate
standards utilized by private sector and other non-governmental
publishers.
This information will provide the basis for an assessment, in
consultation
with the depository library community, of the usefulness and
cost-effectiveness of various electronic formats for depository library
dissemination or access. It will also be the basis for a dialog with the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the National
Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS), the
National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and others with an
interest
in establishing and promulgating Government-wide standards for
information
creation and dissemination.

As an independent Federal agency established to advise the President
and the Congress on national policies related to library and
information
services adequate to meet the needs of the people of the United States,
NCLIS is uniquely situated to coordinate this activity and assist GPO in
the evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and usefulness of various
electronic formats that may be utilized for depository library
dissemination or access. This assessment of standards will be a first
step
toward the ultimate goal of collecting and analyzing information life
cycle
costs, providing data upon which to base further consultation with the
library community and discussions with publishing agencies. The
assessment
should proceed as rapidly as possible in order to assure a successful
and
cost-effective transition to a more electronic FDLP.

Government Information Products in the FDLP

The FDLP will offer Government information products in a variety of
formats and media, although for reasons of economy the choice of
multiple
formats for the same content may be reduced. Depository information
will
be available in two basic types:

- Tangible, physical Government information products, including
paper,
microfiche, and electronic deliverables such as CD-ROM discs
distributed to depository libraries. No fee public use of these
physical products will be at or through depository libraries.
Should members of the public wish to obtain their own copies
they
must purchase them as they do at the present.

- Electronic products from Government electronic information
services,
which are remotely accessible via telecommunication networks.
In
most cases, users with the requisite computer equipment and
network access will be able to use these products from their
home, classroom, or office.

GPO's ability to provide timely and complete access to Government
information products is linked closely to the receipt of timely
notification from the publishing agencies when they initiate,
substantially
modify, or terminate them. In the case of tangible products, SOD
requires
timely notification to "ride" requisitions for information products
produced or procured from sources other than GPO in order to obtain
FDLP
copies at the best cost. For Government information products
accessible
from a Government electronic information service, SOD's ability to
provide
current and accurate Pathway locator services is incumbent upon timely
notification by originating agencies. In addition, prior notification by
the agency when it decides to terminate such products is essential to
meeting the goal of ensuring permanent access to appropriate
Government
information products provided through the FDLP.

Incorporating Government Information Products in the FDLP

GPO will incorporate into the FDLP all types of Government
information
products resulting from agency publishing alternatives. These
alternatives
include publishing tangible products, such as paper, microfiche,
CD-ROM,
video, slides, floppy diskettes, or solely electronic products published
via a telecommunications network and remotely accessible through a
Government electronic information service.

There are four ways in which GPO can bring electronic Government
information products into the FDLP:

- GPO can identify, describe and link the public to the wealth of
distributed Government information products maintained at
Government electronic information services for free public use.

- GPO can "ride" agency requisitions and pay for depository copies of
tangible electronic information products, such as CD-ROM discs,
even if they are not produced or procured through GPO.

- GPO can obtain from agencies electronic source files for
information
the agencies do not wish to disseminate through their own
Government electronic information services. These files can be
made available through the GPO Access services or disseminated
to
depository libraries in CD-ROM or other tangible format.

When an agency decides to publish a tangible information product,
SOD
will attempt to obtain copies of that product for distribution to
depository libraries. When an agency publishes an information product
on
its own electronic information service, GPO will direct users to that
product. When agencies cease to offer online public access to an
information product within the scope of the FDLP, GPO will attempt to
obtain the electronic source files in order to provide permanent access
through the FDLP. SOD may receive such files from the originating
agency,
or as a by-product of replication contracts administered by GPO.
Additional detail on processing agency products appears in Appendix D.

Role of the GPO Access Service

The GPO Access service, with its components of the on-line
interactive
service, the storage facility, the Pathway locator services, and the
Federal Bulletin Board, is the foundation which will support FDLP
access to
Government electronic information products. These products may
reside on
GPO's computers for direct access or the Pathway locator services may
direct users ("point") to products from other agencies' Government
electronic information services. All costs associated with information
dissemination via GPO Access are being funded by the FDLP.

During the strategic period (through FY 2001) several changes are
expected in the developmentof GPO Access. To support permanent
public
access, the storage facility will be a key component of GPO Access. GPO
supports the concept of distributed "repositories" for electronic data,
with primary responsibility falling to the originating agency. However,
there is a need for a coordinated program to identify and maintain
electronic Government information products for public access when
agencies
no longer intend to make their information available. There must be a
joint effort between the agencies, SOD, NARA, and depository libraries
to
establish a distributed system for maintaining permanent access to
Government information products available through the FDLP.

For the foreseeable future, GPO will continue to enhance its World
Wide Web user interface for the GPO Access services. GPO also will
continue to provide a text-only interface for its online databases in
order
to maintain compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
and
to assure access to users with limited technological and communication
capability.

In order to support the electronic Government information products
being incorporated into the FDLP, LPS has developed a specific Web
page
listing online electronic Government titles, arranged by Government
agency
and alphabetically by title under each agency. This page lists and
points
to electronic titles on Federal agencies' electronic information services
(Internet sites).

Making New Information Available through the FDLP

The ability to point to agency electronic information services
provides GPO with an opportunity to bring additional information into
the
FDLP at relatively low cost. Historically, the FDLP has not been funded
at
a level sufficient to obtain and distribute retrospective groups of
tangible Government

information products which were not previously in the program. Now,
when
a Government electronic source for information not previously
disseminated
through the FDLP becomes available, there is a practical way to
incorporate
that information into the FDLP.

SOD will coordinate with other agencies for depository library access
to Government information products remotely accessible via
Government
electronic information services. Preferably, such agencies should
provide
unrestricted, no fee access for depository libraries. However, when the
agency is required to recover costs, or when no such agreement can be
reached, SOD plans, funds permitting, to reimburse the originating
agency
for depository access to information products available via its
electronic
information services. In such scenarios, SOD will not be funding direct,
no fee public access, although depository libraries may serve the public
via gateways, if permitted under the agreement with the agency.

For tangible Government information products, SOD will begin with
current information and move forward as is the current SOD policy. It
is
anticipated that funding will not be available in the strategic period to
add large quantities of retrospective print products to the FDLP.

Reducing Duplication of Product Content

Based on current estimates and assumptions, the transition to a
more
electronic FDLP will not require major increases in appropriations. The
funding source for the transition could be the cost savings which accrue
to
SOD from phasing out paper or microfiche versions of information
which is
available through the FDLP electronically. Redundant dissemination of
content in different formats, e.g. paper and microfiche, or microfiche
and
electronic, or CD-ROM and online, will be reduced. In making the
decision
to eliminate redundant versions of the same content, LPS will consider
such
factors as the usability, intended audience, time sensitivity, and costs of
the various formats. Only "core" paper titles such as those listed in
Appendix A represent potential duplicate distribution, as their content
also may be available electronically.

Cataloging and Locator Services

The Cataloging and Indexing Program, which has a broad legal
mandate
under 44 U.S.C. 1710 and 1710, will expand to incorporate GPO's
efforts
to identify, locate, and point to agency electronic information products.
LPS intends to provide records in machine-readable cataloging (MARC)
format, following the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd Edition
(AACR2),
for all appropriate Government information products, whether in a
tangible
format or an electronic file accessible via a Government electronic
information service. Cataloging emphasis will continue to be on
products
which are not brought under bibliographic control by another
Government
agency.

GPO cataloging records which include information about electronic
Government information products available from Government Internet
sites
will include the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) data. The URL will be
displayed in the records from Monthly Catalog of U.S. Government
Publications accessible through the GPO World Wide Web site, and will
be
linked to the actual electronic information product, so that the content
can be displayed and downloaded by users.

In addition to the Monthly Catalog on the GPO Web site, LPS is
developing a suite of Pathway locator services which permit multiple
approaches to locating and connecting to Government information
products on
the Internet:

Product Points to

Pathway Indexer (prototype), which Individual products, or parts
of products
provides a keyword search of such as specific pages within a
product,
Government Internet sites. from a "seed list" of sites.

Browse Topics, which uses the subject Government Internet sites.
headings from the GPO Subject
Bibliographies.

Browse Titles, a listing with interactive Government information
products from
links to Government Information agency electronic information
services,
products on the Internet. including GPO Access.

GILS (Government Information Locator Metadata about agency
programs or
Service) records. information resources.

The cataloging of electronic products is a major topic of discussion
among national cataloging standards organizations. Through its
participation in cooperative cataloging efforts, GPO will work with
other
institutions to implement a consistent methodology to provide the
necessary
linking information for paper or microfiche products to a successor
electronic version. Ideally, such links will direct users forward to the
new electronic edition and backwards to the paper or microfiche.
Interactive links from bibliographic records ("descriptive metadata") to
the electronic information products will be provided by including the
URL
or other standardized logical location data in the records.

Historically, most agencies, with the exception of the scientific and
technical information agencies, have not cataloged their own print
information products. GPO's Cataloging and Indexing Program has
provided
this service, by cataloging a broad range of Government information
products, primarily those produced through GPO, adhering to standard
library practices and formats. In the case of scientific and technical
information, SOD has not duplicated, and does not plan to duplicate,
the
bibliographic control efforts of those agencies, even though their
cataloging may have been created under different rules and standards.
It
is anticipated that most agencies, other than those in the scientific and
technical community, may not catalog their own electronic information
at
the discrete product level, whether through GILS or another
mechanism. SOD
plans to work with agencies to identify such products and provide
cataloging and locator services for electronic information products.
These
services can be used by agencies, depository libraries, and the public.

Permanent Access Services

The FDLP, through regional depository libraries, has guaranteed
permanent access to tangible Government information products.
Regional
depository libraries provide for permanent access to relatively complete
collections of tangible Government information products dispersed
throughout the country.

For remotely accessible Government electronic information services,
a
parallel mechanism is needed to ensure that this information remains
available for permanent public access. GPO, as the administrator of the
FDLP, will coordinate a distributed system that provides continuous,
permanent public access, involving the publishing agencies, the
National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and regional and other
depository libraries.

To the extent that electronic Government information constitutes
Federal records, as defined by NARA, each agency is responsible for
establishing a records schedule to evaluate and transfer its records to
NARA. GPO has a records schedule which provides for transfer to
NARA for
preservation of all print and microform Government information
products
listed in the Monthly Catalog. There also is a schedule that provides
for
the transfer to NARA for reference purposes the CD-ROM titles listed in
the
Monthly Catalog. GPO will work with NARA to expand this schedule,
so that
all electronic FDLP information which is under our custody and control
is
provided to NARA, and that, to the maximum extent possible, electronic
Government information products are transferred to NARA in formats
suitable
for preservation.

Legal Changes Which Support the Transition

GPO has the necessary statutory authority to incorporate electronic
Government information products into the FDLP. However, certain
amendments
to Chapter 19 of Title 44, U.S.C., which authorizes the FDLP, would
clarify
this authority and facilitate the transition. For example, it should be
established without question that electronic Government information
products must be included in the FDLP. Changes also are needed to
establish authority and responsibility for the FDLP to ensure that both
tangible and electronic Government information products are
maintained
permanently for depository library and public access, and to authorize
the
GPO to request that originating agencies provide electronic source files
of
their information products if they chose to no longer provide public
access
to these products themselves. Some recommendations for legislative
changes, which incorporate the advice of various program stakeholders,
are
included in the FDLP Study Report as the report for Task 6 (Attachment
D-5).

III. DEPOSITORY LIBRARY ROLES AND SERVICE EXPECTATIONS

Strengthening the Federal Depository Library Program

GPO will reshape its relationship with depository and other
librarians
in order to strengthen the depository library system and to advance the
goal of better serving the public. In an increasingly electronic
environment, GPO will assume an expanded role in the provision of
support
services for depository libraries and librarians. These system support
services should better prepare depository libraries to serve as
intermediaries providing direct services to end users. Such expanded
services to libraries include, but are not limited to, Pathway locator
services, user support, training, and documentation. SOD will provide
or
facilitate training and user support for depository libraries for the GPO
Access services. When SOD points to electronic services provided by
another agency, arrangements will be sought with the originating
agency to
provide user support for depository libraries.

Role of Regional and Selective Depository Libraries

The distinction between regional and selective depository libraries
continues to be very clear with respect to tangible Government
information
products; however, the distinction is less apparent for information
products that are remotely accessible via Government electronic
information
services. Selection takes on a different meaning in an environment
where,
once online, a user at a public access workstation can access the full
range of Government electronic information products. However, even
though
users may be able to access Government electronic information
products from
many different agencies, selective depository libraries will retain the
authority to decide which products to support, in consonance with their
overall collection development plans. Users who desire in-depth
assistance
with online electronic products which fall beyond a selective depository
library's collection parameters may be referred to another depository
library.

By October 1996, all depository libraries must be able to provide no
fee public access to online electronic Government information products
accessible via Government electronic information services. Selective
depository libraries are expected to continue to receive (and to retain
for
5 years) only those tangible products which meet their local collection
development policies. Regional depository libraries, with very rare
exceptions, will continue to receive all tangible products distributed
under the auspices of the FDLP, and will hold those products
permanently.

Depository Library Service Expectations

Incorporating a significant amount of electronic information into the
FDLP will pose a significant challenge to depository libraries. Some
depository libraries will have to accelerate their plans to obtain public
access computer workstations, and deal with the demand for local
printing
and downloading. Depository librarians will have to serve user needs
for
electronic information and, at the same time, provide access to their
current and historical print collections.

All depository libraries must have the capability to provide no fee
public access to Government electronic information products identified
in
SOD Pathway locator services, without regard to where that
information
resides. Fulfilling this expectation will require depository libraries to
offer users access to workstations with a graphical user interface,
CD-ROM
capability, access to the Internet including use of the World Wide Web,
and
the ability to access, download, and print extensive products. However,
just as depository libraries now may charge users for photocopying,
they
also may charge users to recover the cost of printing information
accessed
electronically.

The requirement that every depository library must be capable of
providing public access to electronic FDLP information was published
in the
"Guidelines for the Federal Depository Library Program," which were
issued
as "Federal Depository Library Manual, Supplement 2" and distributed
to all
depository libraries on February 28, 1996. Paragraph 7-8 of the
"Guidelines" states that:

Appropriate hardware and software must be provided for public
users
accessing electronic information available through the Federal
Depository Library Program (e.g. CD-ROM titles, on-line databases,
etc.). This hardware and software should include computer work
stations capable of providing Internet access that requires
GILS-aware
software, CD-ROM readers, and printers.

This functional statement regarding electronic information access will
become a FDLP requirement effective October 1, 1996. GPO views this
as an
ongoing basic requirement for depository libraries, although the
methods
used to accomplish this requirement appropriately remain local library
management decisions.

Depository libraries will continue to be responsible for the startup
and maintenance costs associated with equipment and Internet
connectivity
required to provide access to Government information products in
electronic
formats. In order to assist depository librarians with planning the
acquisition of new computer hardware and software, GPO published the
"Recommended Minimum Specifications for Public Access Work
Stations in
Federal Depository Libraries" in the May 15, 1996, issue of
Administrative
Notes.

To assist libraries with the transition, GPO will continue to monitor
the technological capabilities of the depository libraries to provide
cost-effective public access to electronic Government information
products,
particularly as it relates to the standards utilized by agencies in the
creation and dissemination of electronic Government information
products.
This will include information about the costs of equipment, software,
telecommunications, staff training and other depository library
expenses
for accessing and utilizing electronic Government information products
through the FDLP.

Currently most users must pay to photocopy documents in
depository
libraries or to blow back images from microfiche if they wish to obtain
their own copies of Government information products. Similarly, many
libraries are beginning to charge for printing from public access
workstations or to obtain diskettes on which to download and save
electronic information for later use. For this reason, GPO will begin to
monitor the costs to users for printing, downloading and similar
services
using depository library equipment.

Technology Grants

Some depository libraries lack the financial resources to acquire the
requisite computer or telecommunications resources necessary to
adequately
serve the public with electronic FDLP information. Based on a
preliminary
analysis of the responses to the 1995 Biennial Survey of depository
libraries, 25% of the depository libraries do not have public access
workstations connected to the Internet. Many of these libraries are
planning to offer public Internet access within two years, but
approximately 12% of the responding libraries reported no plans to
provide
Internet access to the public. The lack of Internet access for public
users in depository libraries is a critical missing "last mile" in making
Government information products available electronically.

GPO's funding request has asked for authority to expend up to
$500,000
in FY 1997 for "technology grants" to depository libraries. If approved,
the technology grants are intended to ensure reasonable public access
and
proximity to at least one electronically-capable depository in every
Congressional district. These grants, at up to $25,000 each, could be
earmarked for public access workstations and Internet connections in
depository libraries. This one-time financial assistance would enable
depository libraries to achieve a minimum level of capability to serve
the
public with on-line electronic Government information. In order to be
eligible for a technology grant, the depository library must demonstrate
need and stipulate that no other funding source is available for this
purpose.

Training Efforts and Regional Librarians' Conference

SOD will devote additional resources to promoting training and
continuing education opportunities for depository librarians, to raise
the
level of knowledge and skills with electronic information resources.
This
approach will guide the development of future "Federal Depository
Conferences." SOD will provide hands-on training in the use of the GPO
Access online services, and facilitate training on other agencies'
electronic information services.

GPO will inform agencies about issues and concerns in developing
Government information products and electronic information services
suitable for use by the depository libraries and the general public.

GPO will take steps to promote program leadership among the
regional
depository libraries. Closer coordination with the regional depository
libraries and their directors should lead to a greater ability to rely upon
the regional librarians as field coordinators for the FDLP. To this end,
GPO has requested that the statutory limitation on travel funded by the
SOD
Salaries and Expenses appropriation be raised by $20,000 in FY 1997.
If
this request is approved, GPO has proposed to bring regional librarians
together for a one-time conference, at SOD expense, for training,
discussion of state planning initiatives, and a clarification of the
regional libraries' role in the administration of the technology grants.

New Focus for the Inspection Program

The depository library inspection program will be redesigned, so that
the resources devoted to periodic inspections can be reallocated to
FDLP
system support and related services for depository libraries. During the
last eight years, 95% of the depository libraries inspected have been
found
in compliance with the requirements of the FDLP. Now that the
SOD-developed depository library self-study

has been adopted as an evaluation tool for use by the libraries, the
basis for inspections will be that which is specified in 44 U.S.C. 1909,
which states that "the Superintendent of Documents shall make
firsthand
investigation of conditions [in depository libraries] for which need is
indicated ..." (emphasis added).

SOD will concentrate on site compliance inspections of those
libraries
which submit unsatisfactory self-studies, have major changes in staffing
or
facilities, have prior records of non-compliance, or if complaints are
received from the public concerning depository library services. SOD
personnel also will be available to visit, consult with, and assist a
depository library upon request.

During a depository library inspection, SOD will use a functional
approach to determine compliance with the requirement to provide
public
access to Government electronic information. The inspector will focus
on
the depository library's ability to provide public access to electronic
FDLP information. The method selected by the depository library to
meet
this public access requirement is a local determination. For example,
public access to Government information products through
Government
electronic information services may be provided either through
mediated
searches, or by allowing members of the public to use depository library
workstations on their own. In making such decisions, depository
librarians
should bear in mind the "rule of thumb" that services associated with
FDLP
information products should be at the same level as those accorded to
products which are purchased for the library's collection.

Access to Electronic Government Information Products through Public
Libraries

With respect to the electronic information in the program, the FDLP
will not be an exclusive source of no fee Government information to
depository libraries. In order to improve access to Government
information
products at the local level, SOD will promote the FDLP electronic
services
to public libraries. For information delivered via a Government
electronic
information service, the incremental cost of serving additional libraries
or members of the public is minimal. Through a program of outreach to
public libraries, SOD will encourage them to offer FDLP electronic
Government information products to the public.

IV. ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Superintendent of Documents Classification System

GPO's Superintendent of Documents classification system is used to
assign permanent and unique identifiers to tangible Government
information
products. This has enabled libraries to shelve and provide access to
their
physical collections. However, the location requirements for
Government
information products that are remotely accessible via Government
electronic
information services are not met by any current application of the
Superintendent of Documents classification system.

A committee comprised of ALA Government Documents Round Table
(GODORT)
members and LPS staff has agreed in principle to a proposal to apply
the
classification system to electronic online products. This use of the
classification system will assist in relating electronic products to their
print antecedents and allow the title to be processed for the various
Monthly Catalog outputs, including presentation on the GPO Web site.
The
application of the Superintendent of Documents classification system to
physical products will be continued.

For electronic Government information products stored in a digital
data repository, permanency and uniqueness can be ensured by
applying the
"persistent name" (also known as a Uniform Resource

Identifier, URI or "handle"). Over the next few years a standard for
"persistent names" should emerge, and LPS will investigate utilizing or
adapting this approach to identify the electronic information products
available through the FDLP.

Notification of Electronic Government Information Products in the
FDLP

LPS does not intend to issue an "Electronic Products Shipping List"
for online products available from GPO Access or other agencies'
Internet
sites. Information concerning electronic products in the FDLP is being
included in the "Administrative Notes Technical Supplement". A special
section on the "Browse Titles" page on the GPO Web site also will notify
depository libraries of electronic products available from GPO Access or
from other agencies' Internet sites.

However, notification about electronic information products should
be
an interactive process. LPS appreciates the efforts of individual
documents librarians to identify new or changing Government Internet
products and to notify the depository community about them. This
individual initiative is an important component of bringing additional
electronic products into the FDLP, and we encourage librarians to direct
such notices to LPS so we can consider the product for inclusion in the
FDLP. This channel will complement LPS' efforts to have publishing
agencies provide adequate notification when they initiate, substantially
modify, or terminate access to a Government information product.

Use of Item Numbers for Electronic Government Information Products

As previously stated, selection takes on a different meaning with
respect to electronic Government information products. Selective
depository libraries will offer access to the full range of remotely
accessible Government information products, but will retain the
authority
to decide which electronic products to support, based on their
collection
development plans. In order to assist depository libraries in
establishing
profiles with vendors, so that only selected categories of bibliographic
records will be added to their online public access catalogs (OPACs),
new
remotely accessible Government information products will be assigned
item
numbers. These item numbers will represent the electronic products of
an
agency. For each electronic title that has a physical antecedent in the
FDLP, the existing item number under which the tangible form was
distributed will be used.

Future Distribution of Tangible Government Information Products

As the distribution of tangible Government information products
declines, SOD may reach the point where it is no longer cost-effective to
maintain an in-house distribution capability. The current distribution
system for tangible products, the LPS Lighted Bin System, relies upon
economies of scale for cost-effectiveness. SOD will carefully analyze the
costs of Lighted Bin System maintenance, distribution staffing, space
requirements, overhead, etc., to determine the break-even point. If that
point is reached, SOD will discontinue the in-house distribution
operation,
and move to contractual shipping arrangements for the remaining
tangible
products in the FDLP.

V. IMPACT OF THIS PLAN ON OTHER SOD PROGRAMS

The scope of this Strategic Plan is the Federal Depository Library
Program, and because of its integral support role to the FDLP, the
Cataloging and Indexing Program. Other SOD programs, the By-Law
Distribution Program, the International Exchange System (IES)
Program, and
the Sales of Publications Program (Sales Program) have been considered
briefly within the context of this plan and a statement concerning each
follows. Just as with the FDLP, these programs are experiencing the
effects of changes in agency publishing practices causing the reduced
availability of print and microfiche Government information products.
Evaluation and planning to adapt to these changes is needed for each
program, but that is not within the scope of this plan.

By-Law Distribution Program

The By-Law Distribution Program is funded by the GPO Salaries and
Expenses (S&E) appropriation and provides for the distribution of
Government information products, such as the Congressional Serial
Set, only
when required by statute. The Government information products that
are
included in the program, the recipients of those products, and the
distribution quantity and formats are all determined by statute, or by
the
direction of the Congress. Therefore, this program is entirely
independent
of the FDLP and will not be impacted negatively by the transition to a
more
electronic FDLP.

International Exchange System Program

The International Exchange System (IES) Program is authorized by
44
U.S.C. 1719, which provides for the distribution by the SOD of "all
Government publications, including the daily and bound copies of the
Congressional Record, ... to those foreign governments which agree, as
indicated by the Library of Congress, to send to the United States
similar
publications of their governments for delivery to the Library of
Congress,"
with some exceptions. The foreign government information products
received
by LC through this exchange include critical legal and legislative
materials, ministerial reports and other publications that, in many
cases,
would not be available to the Library of Congress--and thus to
Congress--by
any other means.

Under this statute, SOD currently manages the acquisition and
distribution of U.S. Government information products for the IES
program
on behalf of LC, and the costs of the copies sent to the IES exchange
partners are borne by the SOD Salaries and Expenses (S&E)
appropriation.
The IES program distributes a subset of the U.S. Government
publications
selected for the FDLP. However, many documents which are distributed
to
FDLP libraries in paper are converted to microfiche format by SOD for
distribution to the exchange partners. Overall, this results in a
significant savings to the IES program and less storage is required at
the
recipient libraries.

LC has emphasized that it is critical for the foreseeable future to
continue the availability of Government information products in paper
and
microfiche for those exchange partners who have limited or no access to
the
Internet./4/ SOD understands this requirement and will continue to
review
all agency printing requisitions in order to obtain copies for the
Cataloging and Indexing Program and the IES program./5/ However, as
the
transition to a more electronic FDLP moves forward, SOD will ride
fewer
agency printing requisitions to obtain copies of printed Government
information products either for depository distribution or to produce
depository microfiche masters. As the transition occurs, and once the
FDLP
is no longer absorbing the cost of creating microfiche masters of
Government information products for its own purposes, costs to the IES
program will rise moderately

/4/ Letter from Winston Tabb, Associate Librarian of Congress, to
Michael
F. DiMario, Public Printer, May 24, 1996.

/5/ Federal agencies submit a Standard Form 1 (SF-1) to GPO to
requisition
printing and publication services which then are procured from
commercial firms or produced by GPO personnel. This includes
CD-ROM
development and replication services and other electronic publishing
activities.

More critical to the future of the IES program is the fact that
agencies are terminating paper publications that previously were
selected
for inclusion in both the FDLP and the IES program. In this regard, LC
has
stated that "[t]o the extent that any document now produced in paper
format
ceases to appear in other than electronic format, that item is lost to our
exchange partners and, ultimately, reciprocal items become lost to our
collections."/6/

/6/ Ibid.

Another threat to the IES program is the increasing availability of
U.S. Government information products through free electronic
Government
information services. For those exchange partners who are able to
access
the Internet, the incentive to exchange their own, usually copyrighted,
publications for comparable, but uncopyrighted, U.S. Government
information products is reduced significantly when they can obtain the
same
information easily and without charge or reciprocal obligation.

LC and GPO should work together on a strategic plan that will
enable
the IES program to adapt to changes in agency publishing practices.
The
plan should also identify, and determine the costs of, various options to
maintain the viability of the IES program. One such option, at least as
an
interim solution for the exchange partners that cannot yet accept
electronic Government information products from the United States,
may be
for SOD to use electronic Government information products to print or
create microfiche for IES distribution.

Sales of Publications Program

The Sales of Publications Program (Sales Program) will not be
impacted
negatively by the transition to a more electronic FDLP. The Sales
Program
acquires publications independently from the FDLP. Therefore, as with
the
IES program, it will be affected more by the publishing decisions of the
originating agencies. In fact, there may be additional opportunities for
sales of print format publications which are produced on demand from
electronic information sources as agencies themselves publish only
electronically.

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Paper Titles in the FDLP - Core List

Appendix B: FDLP System Requirements for Electronic Access

Appendix C: Transition Chronology

Appendix D: Incorporating Agency Information Products in the FDLP

Appendix A: Paper Titles in the FDLP--Core List

A core group of publications has been identified which must remain in
the
FDLP in paper, even if they also are published as either tangible or
remotely accessible electronic information products. These titles
contain
information which is vital to the democratic process and critical to an
informed electorate. They support the public's right to know about the
essential activities of their Government. Maintaining these titles in
paper format, whether or not they are available electronically, is
essential to the purpose of the FDLP. GPO will request funding to
continue
providing the titles listed below, and others of comparable importance
that
may be identified in the future, to depository libraries in paper format
as
long as they are published in paper.

I. Legislative Branch

United States Congress, Joint Committee on Printing
- Congressional Directory
- Congressional Record, final bound edition (distribution is limited
to regional depository libraries, plus one depository in each state
without a regional)
- United States Congressional Serial Set, bound edition (based on the
recommendation of the 1994 Serial Set Study Group, and the
alternatives proposed in the report for Task 8B, distribution will
be limited to regional depository libraries, plus one depository in
each state without a regional)

United States Congress, Joint Economic Committee
- Economic Indicators

Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives
- United States Code

II. Judicial Branch

United States Supreme Court
- United States Reports

III. Executive Branch

Executive Office of the President
- Economic Report of the President

Office of Federal Register
- Code of Federal Regulations
- Federal Register
- List of Sections Affected (CFR)
- Public Papers of the President
- Statutes at Large
- U.S. Government Manual

Census Bureau, Dept. of Commerce
- Congressional District Atlas
- County and City Data Book
- State & Metropolitan Area Data Book
- Statistical Abstract of the U.S.

National Center for Health Statistics, Dept. of Health and Human
Services
- Vital Statistics of the U.S.

Dept. of State
- American Foreign Policy--Current Documents
- Foreign Relations of the U.S.
- Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States
- Treaties in Force

Office of Management and Budget
- Budget of the United States Government
- Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Appendix B: FDLP System Requirements for Electronic Access

General Requirements

Electronic information for the FDLP will be prepared for inclusion in
the
GPO Access service in two basic ways: primarily, using agency-supplied
or
contractor-supplied electronic source files, and to a very limited extent,
by scanning print products.

When agencies or contractors supply electronic source files in a variety
of
formats, the capability is required to accept the various file formats,
and
then to mount them for remote access through GPO Access or prepare
them for
physical dissemination on a CD-ROM, or other successor technology.
In
order to gain the widest cooperation from agencies, SOD will accept
data in
whatever file format the agency offers. As an incentive for agencies to
provide their data, SOD will not dictate standard file formats to the
agencies. However, whenever it is practical to do so, SOD will convert
such files to one or more of the standard file formats identified as being
most useful and cost-effective for depository distribution and access.
For
example, word processing and PostScript files may be distilled into
Adobe
Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) files. Based on a preliminary
analysis, standard data formats for the GPO Access services are
expected,
in the near term, to be ASCII and Adobe PDF (Portable Document
Format).
When fully implemented, the Open Text (GPO Access Phase II) software
will
access SGML formatted files.

SOD also requires the ability to scan or accept scanned information for
mounting on GPO Access. This will pertain primarily to Government
information products which would have been distributed in paper or
microfiche format. Serial or series publications will be maintained in
their present format until a dependable, ongoing supply of electronic
source files is assured. Scanning, due to the associated expense and
complexity of producing an acceptable result, is viewed as a secondary
choice.

System Requirements

For FDLP information accessed electronically the system must:

- be capable of linking multiple users to multiple sites. Since FDLP
users include depository libraries and the public at large, the system
should have sufficient capacity to support an expanding base of
users
connecting via Internet, telnet, or modem. Because of resource
limitations on our system, users who connect by telnet or modem
will
be able to use the SOD sites, and will be provided with information
to
enable them to connect to those sites.

- as long as technologically current, our primary focus will be on the
GPO Web site as the point of entry, or front end, for all of the
electronic services of the FDLP.

- support a full range of users, i.e., both depository librarians and
the general public through the FDLP, including persons who have
less
than state-of-the-art computer resources. The system must employ
appropriate technologies to ensure compliance with the Americans
with
Disabilities Act (ADA).

- support Pathway locator services, which will assist users in
locating remotely accessible Government information products.

- provide daily database updates and indexing, including a means to
let users know what is new on the system.

- provide the means to assure that Government information products
delivered from SOD sites are authentic and official.

- to support searching compliant with ANSI Z39.50. Developing a
client/server system will facilitate multiple standard user interfaces
and reduce the burden on users to learn numerous different
interfaces.
The use of applications which require customized or non-standard
clients should be minimized.

- to the greatest extent practical, offer full-text searching of the
electronic files offered on GPO Access. However, for some
publications which are "graphics intensive," it may be sufficient to
provide non-searchable image files.

- have a system design which minimizes life cycle costs to SOD, with
consideration of the cost implications for libraries and end users.

- have the capability and flexibility to support, in the most
cost-effective manner, information of high, medium, and low-level
usage.

- have the capability for permanent access to Government electronic
information products with data and software migration as required
to
support effective public use.

In addition, there is a potential requirement to establish, at an SOD
facility, online or nearline access to CD-ROM discs which have been, or
could be, physically distributed through the FDLP. Before defining
applications or candidate CD-ROM products for such a service, GPO
will
identify, investigate and test appropriate technologies, and explore the
costs and benefits of alternative delivery mechanisms.

Appendix C: Transition Chronology

In order to implement this plan, which spans fiscal years 1996 through
2001, SOD will undertake the following general activities:

By the end of FY 1996, SOD will:

- Identify opportunities to reduce duplication of content by offering
only an electronic format where multiple formats now are available.
Core paper titles will continue to be distributed as long as they are
published in paper. Intended usage and user needs will be
considered
in the decision process to offer only an electronic format in the
FDLP.

- Investigate and, if necessary, develop initial standards for the
format(s) of electronic Government information products provided
through the FDLP. Initiate an assessment of standards for creation
and dissemination of electronic Government information through a
joint
effort with NCLIS.

- Develop a comprehensive approach to cataloging and locating
Government information products, through library-standard
cataloging
or through Pathway locator services such as the browser, indexer,
product title list, etc.

- Investigate technical and cost implications of scanning products
which would have been distributed in paper or microfiche, when the
source data files are not available from the originating agency.

- Undertake additional outreach to Federal publishing agencies to
improve awareness of how participation in a more electronic FDLP
can
assist them in fulfilling their missions, and encourage agencies to
provide SOD with electronic source files.

- If approval of the full FY 1997 funding request seems probable,
develop guidelines for one-time technology grants.

- Inform the depository library community about the electronic
initiatives for the FDLP.

- Attain a product mix of approximately 45% paper, 50% microfiche,
and
5% electronic.

In FY 1997, (assuming funding at the requested level) SOD will:

- Require all depository libraries to have the capability to provide
and support public access to Government electronic information
products.

- Enhance the suite of Pathway locator services to ensure the fullest
use of World Wide Web or successor indexing technologies to assist
librarians and the public in locating and connecting to Government
information products on agency electronic information services.

- Develop an electronic mechanism for two-way FDLP administrative
communication with the depository libraries.

- Concentrate on obtaining electronic source files from agencies,
either voluntarily or through a change in the statute.

- Restructure the depository inspection program to rely more heavily
on self-inspection.

- Initiate application, consideration, and award of the "needs-based"
technology grants to depository libraries.

- Conduct a one-time "invitational" workshop for regional librarians.

- Accelerate utilization of the GPO Access storage facility as a data
"repository."

- Reduce duplication of content by offering only an electronic format
where multiple formats now are available. Core paper titles will be
distributed as long as they are published in paper. Intended usage
and user needs will be considered in the decision process to offer
only an electronic format in the FDLP.

- Conduct testing and experimentation to identify appropriate
applications for scanning a limited number of paper products in
cases
where the electronic source files are not available.

- Identify possible candidate institutions for cooperative
arrangements for permanent access to FDLP electronic information.
Initiate such agreements where possible.

- Continue to monitor the technological capabilities of the
depository
libraries to provide cost-effective public access to electronic
Government information products. This will include information
about
the costs of equipment, software, telecommunications, staff training
and other depository library expenses for accessing and utilizing
electronic Government information products through the FDLP.

- Begin to monitor the costs to users for printing, downloading and
similar services using depository library equipment.

- Attain a product mix of approximately 35% paper, 40% microfiche,
and
25% electronic.

By the end of FY 1998, (assuming funding at or near the FY 1996
level)
SOD will provide about 50% of FDLP information electronically, by:

- Pointing to products accessible via agency electronic information
services;

-Processing and mounting agency-provided electronic source files on
GPO Access;

- Distributing tangible electronic products, i.e. CD-ROM discs;

- Scanning agency print products for mounting on GPO Access or
disseminating in tangible format as text or image files.

- Having all depository libraries capable of serving the public with
electronic Government information products.

- Achieving a depository product mix of about 50% electronic, 30%
paper, and 20% microfiche.

During the period from FY 1998 through FY 2001, SOD will move
increasingly
toward electronic dissemination and access.

Appendix D: Incorporating Agency Information Products in the FDLP

E25.TIF
E26.TIF
E27.TIF
E28.TIF
E29.TIF
E30.TIF

Page FDLP October 29, 1996