I'd like to take a few minutes this morning to discuss a growing trend to transfer Federal Government information from the public domain to private ownership.

This is happening in a number of ways. One is for agencies to establish exclusive or restrictive distribution arrangements that limit public access to information. Another is to charge fees or royalties for reuse or redissemination of public information. In some recent cases government publishers have actually assisted in transferring copyright to the new owner.

Let me give you an example. For many years, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) procured the printing of its Journal of the National Cancer Institute through the Government Printing Office. The Superintendent of Documents Sales Program sold subscriptions to the Journal and it was distributed to Federal depository libraries at GPO expense.

In 1987, NCI made the semimonthly Journal a more current, higher quality cancer research publication. It was heavily promoted by our Office of Marketing in coordination with the NCI staff. By 1992, the Journal was selling 6,240 copies at an annual subscription of $51, and was distributed free to more than 800 selecting depository libraries throughout the nation. It had achieved recognition as "the number one journal" in its field, publishing the best original research papers in oncology from around the world.

In 1993, the National Cancer Institute notified us that they were developing a "Consolidated Services" concept making all print and electronic data information available only through an "Information Associates Program." GPO could no longer sell subscriptions at $51. The only way to get a subscription was to buy an Associates Program membership from NCI for $100. NCI agreed to supply depository copies at the agency's expense. GPO continued to sell individual copies in bookstores at $7 each. In December 1994, the International Cancer Information Center, publisher of the Journal, received a Federal "Hammer" award for its new Information Associates Program.

Then, a disturbing development. Just a few weeks ago, in a letter dated January 2, our Library Program Service was notified that the Journal had been "privatized." Ownership was transferred from the National Cancer Institute to Oxford University Press - USA, Inc. The letter said: "Under the terms of a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement signed by the two organizations, the name of the publication will be retained, and Oxford will assume all responsibility for printing the Journal and will hold copyright to the Journal's content."

The letter went on to explain that "because the Journal is no longer a publication of the U.S. Government, copies of the Journal and JNCI Monographs will not be provided to the Depository Library Program nor will sale copies be available at the GPO bookstore." The new price, from Oxford, is $120 for an individual and $150 for an institution.

The last paragraph in this brief letter said: "We appreciate the service the Depository Library Program has provided in disseminating the Journal and JNCI Monographs for many years."

Looking back, I do not regret that we at GPO invested our resources in promoting the Cancer Journal in the late 1980s. Nor do I regret assisting in the transfer of subscribers to the Information Associates Program in 1993. But I do regret the loss of this valuable resource to American citizens through the Depository Library Program in 1997.

I have here the November 20 issue of the Journal which I purchased from the main GPO Bookstore. Maybe this last, public domain issue has some historical value.

Looking through the Journal, a number of questions come to mind. I note that the masthead lists some 26 staff members.

I wonder if the editorial and news staff is still being paid by the American taxpayer, but working for the Oxford University Press? I wonder if the Oxford Press is sharing revenues from the new, higher subscription rate with the National Cancer Institute? I wonder if copyright will prevent a librarian from sending a copy of an article to another librarian?

I have no way of knowing the answers to these questions, because the details of the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement are not public information, according to NCI legal counsel.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. There are other recent examples of information gathered by government employees disappearing from the public domain, for a price. I worry that these cases will become precedents and the precedents will set an irreversible trend.

I want to make it clear that I do not question the motives or goals of the agency publishers who take this course. They are doing what they feel is right in a new environment which calls for cutting costs and generating revenues. They are seeking to preserve valuable information.

But what if this new trend drives future Federal Government information policy? Since the founding of our nation, the cornerstone of information policy in the United States has been the principle of universal access to Federal information. This principle is being set aside without many of the usual checks and balances in our democratic society: without any high level policy debate, without clear rules, without thought to unintended consequences, and often without full public disclosure of the negotiations and agreements.

Is all Federal information with sufficient demand going to be sent to market? If so, we should think about what that means.

Does it mean that a Government agency may sell its name as well as its information?

Does it mean that a wide array of private sector publishers will no longer have access to the information to add value and redistribute it to many different markets in different products?

Does it mean the public consumer must pay two or three times as much, or more, for the same information?

Does it mean that agency publishers will focus their attention on more popular, marketable information and eliminate other, perhaps more significant but less marketable information?

Does it mean that programs authorized by Congress will begin to move away from public needs, to focus instead on market needs never contemplated by our elected representatives?

Does it mean Government employees working at taxpayer expense to support the information requirements of private firms? And isn't that corporate welfare?

And what if the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, now owned by the Oxford University Press, does not meet the profit goals of the new owner? Does it mean that instead of a "Hammer" award, there will be the "axe" usually awarded sub-par performers in the market place?

Who represents the public in a Bottom-line Information Era? What is to prevent our Nation's bridge to the 21st century from turning into a toll bridge for Government information?

In 1989, the late Office of Technology Assessment, may it rest in peace, declared that "congressional action is urgently needed to resolve Federal information issues and to set the direction of Federal activities for years to come." Now, eight years later, there is some talk of legislation to update Federal Information Policy to the electronic era.

The critical issues at stake today are preservation of official information, public access, Government accountability, and an informed electorate. Americans should not pass up this opportunity to define their own information future.

Those best positioned to know the value and power of information should take the lead. It is not an easy issue for the media because it lacks the essential elements of hot news. It is more significant than sensational.

It is not an easy issue for politicians because there is no visible crisis and framing sound policy seldom delivers votes.

So it may be up to those among us who by nature are reluctant to get out front. Remember those riveting lines of Yeats: "The best lack all conviction, While the worst are full of passionate intensity." Let's not let that happen.

Before it is too late, let the debate begin.

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Washington in February, where we've been known to commemorate President's Day with some truly monumental snowfalls. This morning I want to review the progress of the transition to a more electronic FDLP, and how we see things now that we're about a year into the transition. We now have some practical experience behind us, and we can look at things from a vantage point in the midst of a transition period. In the midst of all these changes, I'm coming at this as a series of impressions; glances out of the rear view mirror as we hit that information highway.

A critical observation has to do with the uneven pace of change. Our situation is often "two steps forward, one step back." The enormous strides in electronic technologies have forever changed how Government information is compiled, disseminated, located, and used, and how we do business in our libraries, but the information policy area has lagged behind. Every day we are encountering situations in which the current statutes and regulations, and especially how they are interpreted and enforced, need to evolve to catch up with information technologies.

In the Strategic Plan for the transition that we put together about one year ago, we envisioned four ways in which GPO can bring electronic Government information products into the FDLP. Let's revisit these, and see how they're panning out:

1. We said that "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." In general, this is working well. We have our Pathway Services, Monthly Catalog on the Web, and so forth. Between these we are pointing to over 2,000 agency Internet products and sites, and this number is expanding rapidly.

2. We also said that "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." Now we're beginning to see some problems, especially in the policy arena, in terms of what we can pay for.

3. We went on to say that GPO should "ride" agency requisitions and pay for depository copies of tangible electronic information products, such as CD-ROM discs or their software licenses, even if they are not produced or procured through GPO. This ability could be quite useful in getting content for the Program, but we still have limits about what we can pay for.

4. 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, made available by an external partner, or even disseminated to depository libraries in CD-ROM or other tangible format. In general this situation is workable from a policy perspective. Where we run into problems is that what we receive from agencies is replete with technical challenges, and likely to be quite expensive to present in a useful way.

What Can the FDLP Pay For?

Let's shift now to what the FDLP can pay for. The guiding language here is from Title 44, Section 1903:

• If an agency obtains printing from or through GPO, the FDLP pays for the depository copies and their distribution.

• If the agency bypasses GPO, the FDLP pays for the distribution, but the agency pays for the copies. This is a critical point, and it has affected our ability to develop "cost-sharing" solutions which could have brought more products into the FDLP.

How can this model be applied in the electronic information age? Consider these scenarios:

• An agency produces a CD-ROM through GPO, but uses a unique software. The FDLP rides for copies, pays for software licenses for depository users, and pays for distribution. Inasmuch as software licensing expenses are analogous to the expenses which have routinely been borne by the Salaries & Expenses appropriation to deliver copies of printed products to the depository libraries, we are able pay the software licensing costs when an agency produces its CD-ROMs through GPO. An example of this is the National Trade Data Bank from STAT-USA.

• An agency produces a CD-ROM on its own, bypassing GPO, but agrees to provide depository copies. The CD uses another unique software, which must be licensed. Clearly, FDLP can pay for distribution, but following Section 1903, the agency should bear the cost of the software licensing required to use the product.

• An agency decides to cease production of a CD-ROM title which was distributed to depositories, but wants to give us a reproducible CD that could be replicated for the libraries. The agency's product is now produced only as a "one-off" product, on-demand, and sold to the public; there is no production run per se. What can we do to keep the content in the FDLP? Robin and I are facing this situation right now with the Digital Raster Graphics CDS from the U.S. Geological Survey.

What we're finding as we work through these various electronic product scenarios is that policy situations keep coming up. And as I alluded to earlier, many of these have to do with interpretations of and compliance with existing laws and regulations. Here are some examples:

• We believe that agencies have an obligation to deliver their products to the Superintendent of Documents for distribution to the Federal depository libraries. This was articulated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources, which states that agencies shall at a minimum "provide electronic information dissemination products to the Government Printing Office for distribution to depository libraries."

• The broadest range of content should be available to the FDLP. Section 1902 defines the scope of the Program as:

  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 ...

• You should be wary of any attempt to narrow the scope of the FDLP to only those products which were "intended for public dissemination." This redefinition could reduce the amount of information in the program by as much as 80%.

• We need broad affirmation that electronic products belong in the FDLP, in order to provide the broadest possible public access. We should support a definition of "Government publication" which explicitly includes information in electronic formats, and recognizes that such formats may now include tangible electronic products, such as CD-ROMs, and intangible products such as those published via the Internet.

• Existing policies which prohibit exclusive arrangements, or copyright-like restrictions which take the information out of the public domain, should be enforced.

• Historically there have been cases where Government information products have not been included in the FDLP because they were not produced or procured through the Government Printing Office. Agencies should be directed to supply copies to the FDLP of any tangible products, including CD-ROMs, which are produced or procured elsewhere than through GPO.

These are the kinds of issues that we encounter daily now, as we make our way through the electronic transition.

Agency Cooperation with the FDLP

Robin is going to cover a number of specific cases of both successes and failures to keep agency information in the FDLP, but I wanted to make a more general comment on the issue of cooperation, since many of my last points involve cooperation and compliance. In terms of our legal authority, and the avenues open to us to get content into the FDLP, here's what LPS considers cooperation from an agency in providing access to its electronic products:

• Agencies produce their products through GPO, which affords the FDLP the opportunity to ride for depository copies.

• Agencies provide the requisite depository library copies to GPO, free of any encumbrances such as software license fees or copyright-like restrictions.

• In the case of online services, the agency provides no-fee access to the FDLP.

Often these are viewed as compliance issues, and as such have at times been contentious, or become interpreted in narrow ways. When we go out to talk to agencies we are trying to accentuate the positive: how GPO can assist the agency in meeting its public information mission, effectively and at low cost. In the long run we may gain more through this kind of approach than by stressing compliance and enforcement.

Nevertheless, it's encouraging to note that the issues of compliance and enforcement have the attention of the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP). I'd like to read you a brief excerpt from the statement of Senator John Warner, Chairman of the JCP, before the House Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations:

In other cases, where agencies have attempted to circumvent the GPO printing procurement process, government publications, published at taxpayer expense, have become fugitive documents ...

This year, at the request of the Joint Committee on Printing, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the House Oversight Committee are seeking language in all authorizing and appropriating bills requiring every agency of the Federal government to comply with Title 44, as Congress moves to update this law in light of modern technology.

Every means available will be used to obtain compliance by Federal agencies with Title 44, especially with regard to the Federal Depository Library Program.

We welcome this commitment, and hope that it will improve the situation concerning fugitive information.

Status of Strategic Plan Goals

In our Strategic Plan, issued in the June 1996 Study report, we laid out some goals for where we thought the Program could be by the end of FY 1998. Assuming funding at or near the FY 1996 level, we predicted we could provide about 50% of FDLP information electronically. Let's revisit some of those goals and see how we're doing. The plan referred to:

• Pointing to products accessible via agency electronic information services. We are enabling users to locate and connect to agency electronic services through the GPO Pathway Services. Pathway "Browse Titles" is the current awareness tool, and the Monthly Catalog on the Web provides a complete description and subject access. We will continue developing these efforts through funding from the FDLP and the Cataloging & Indexing Program.

• In terms of processing and mounting agency-provided electronic source files on GPO Access, we are currently exploring options to use electronic image files, such as those provided by the Department of Energy (DOE). The DOE reports account for about 1/3 of all the titles in the FDLP, and the solution to this problem may give us access to other products never before in the FDLP. However, our investigations suggest that mounting agency source files is complicated and may prove expensive.

• Distribution of CD-ROMs continues to increase. We'll probably peak out at about 1,000 CD-ROM titles per year in the program, and then it will begin to taper off, as some agencies, such as the U.S. Geological Survey, are moving from producing CD-ROMs to on-demand CD-ROM publishing of customized products. We are exploring options to keep such information in the FDLP, when there is no production run to ride for copies, and the information is not available via the Internet.

• Scanning agency print products for mounting on GPO Access or disseminating in tangible format as text or image files is generally only appropriate as a last resort to obtain an electronic version of a product. We are focussing our efforts upon obtaining electronic source data files from the originating agency, since most print products are now created electronically. Since Congress agreed that the more deliberate, five- to seven-year transition was appropriate, the speed of our transition is now closely aligned with what the publishing agencies are doing. We see the FDLP evolving, so as agencies move to electronic publishing, the FDLP can incorporate those products into the program.

• We wanted to see all depository libraries capable of serving the public with electronic Government information products. Since the beginning of FY 1997, all depositories have been expected to be able to offer users the ability to access, search, view, download and, to some extent, print information located on the Internet. This may be done by providing the user with direct access to a computer work station, or by conducting mediated searches at the user's request. By now we believe that the great majority of the libraries are able to meet these minimum requirements.

• We hoped to achieve a depository product mix of about 50% electronic, 30% paper, and 20% microfiche. We may be closer than you think. Since the GPO Access service is funded from the Superintendent of Documents Salaries & Expenses appropriation, we consider GPO Access as the online information delivery vehicle for the FDLP. In FY 1996, depository libraries received about 1.7 million copies per month of tangible products; e.g., paper or microfiche. By way of comparison, documents downloaded from GPO Access over the same period averaged 2.4 million per month. Although these figures are not entirely comparable, since many GPO Access users do not come through depository libraries or gateways, there is evidence that we are moving along well toward meeting this goal.

Electronic Transition Staff

I believe that much of our progress in the electronic area has come thanks to our Electronic Transition Staff (ETS), and in particular to our visiting experts from the library community. We've been fortunate to be able to get very high-quality people for ETS, both from the library community and from within LPS. Lee Morey from our Cataloging staff and Joe Paskoski from the Inspection Team are doing really good things with Pathway Services and Web initiatives, and I'm really pleased about their contributions. In general ETS brainstorms projects, sells them to management, gets them up and running, and then we incorporate them into our line operations. Unfortunately, our visiting experts can only stay with us one year, and the clock is running.

So we're testing the waters. LPS is interested in talking to persons to fill one-year appointments as Expert Consultants to work on the electronic transition. We are looking for two librarians or other information professionals associated with the depository library community who have a demonstrated interest and expertise in the creation, dissemination, use, or permanent public accessibility of electronic Government information products, and who would like to work with LPS on related issues and projects for the next year.

While there is no specific starting date, we would prefer to bring new people on board before those currently filling the positions finish their one-year assignments. If you are interested in one of these positions, please contact me, Duncan, or Jay Young to arrange for an interview or to get more information.

Now I want to shift to some specific initiatives and observations.

Revising Workstation Specifications

In the spring of 1996 we issued a revised set of "Recommended Minimum Specifications for Public Access Work Stations in Federal Depository Libraries." These recommended specifications were intended to assist depository librarians who are planning purchases of new public access work stations capable of using most text-based FDLP electronic information products. We later issued a supplemental set of specifications for use with electronic spatial data, to run Geographic Information System (GIS) software, or to print maps from electronic sources. Now it's time to revisit those specifications, and to update them to reflect technological changes. Lee Morey of our Electronic Transition Staff (ETS) is coordinating the next generation draft workstation specs. She has a draft here for you look at and get back to us with your comments. We've also asked the Government Information Technology Committee to take a look at it and give us some feedback.

"Core Documents of Democracy" on GPO Access

A new project that I've asked Duncan Aldrich and Joe Paskoski to work on is called "Core Documents of Democracy" on GPO Access. It's a proposal for a basic electronic depository collection, one which will provide American citizens direct online access to the basic Federal Government documents that define our democratic society. We're thinking of a core group of current and historical Government publications which can be made available for free, permanent, public access via the GPO Access service. 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. Immediate online access to authenticated versions of these Core Documents of Democracy increases in importance as Americans grow ever more dependent on remote electronic access to basic information resources, both past and present. I'm very interested in your reactions to this proposal, and your suggestions on what titles should be included. Our thinking is somewhat preliminary at this point, but we are using the "Core Paper Titles" list of 24 essential titles from the Strategic Plan as a starting point. These titles, which are vital enough that they should be maintained in the depository program in paper, and also vital enough that they should form the nucleus of the electronic core collection on GPO Access. We plan to have a more fully developed proposal and Web page mockups for discussions by the April Conference and Council meetings.

Bound Serial Set and Congressional Record

In the House Report accompanying the FY 1997 Legislative Branch appropriations act, Congress directed us to change the format and distribution for the bound U.S. Congressional Serial Set. We have been directed to produce a CD-ROM Serial Set, and to limit the distribution of the bound Serial Set to regional depositories, one library in each State without a regional, and 13 international exchange libraries.

In our Strategic Plan, included in the Study report, GPO took the position that both the Serial Set and the bound Congressional Record are "core titles" which, because of their historical and research value, should remain in the FDLP in paper format. We proposed that, at a minimum, regional depositories and one library in each of the seven States which lack a regional should receive both products. This distribution pattern was the existing situation for the bound Record, and involved a substantial cut for the Serial Set. We have repeatedly communicated the library community's concerns about the bound Serial Set to the Congress, most recently in the Public Printer's statement to the House Legislative Branch appropriations subcommittee at our hearing on February 11. [Text available on GPO Access and in Administrative Notes, v. 18, no. 4, 2/28/97]

As you know, we conducted a survey to determine interest in purchasing the bound Serial Set, using the deposit account as the method of payment. To date 21 libraries have filed letters of intent indicating their interest in purchasing the bound Set.

Likewise, we passed on your concerns about the bound Congressional Record, which Congress directed us to replace with CD-ROM. Since 1990, the bound Congressional Record has been distributed to each regional depository library, one depository library in each of the seven States which lack a regional, two depository libraries in the District of Columbia, and one in Puerto Rico. In total, distribution to depository libraries requires 62 bound Congressional Record sets. This distribution plan was proposed to the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP) in a letter from the Public Printer dated July 26, 1990, and approved by the JCP in the Chairman's reply dated August 7, 1990.

" GPO has been advised of very serious concerns within the depository library community about the discontinuation of the paper format bound Congressional Record in the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), and I want to bring these concerns to your attention. Depository librarians view the bound Congressional Record as an essential reference resource which should be maintained in the FDLP in paper format. There are also legitimate questions about the permanency of the CD-ROM format, from an archival media standpoint, as well as issues concerning computer hardware and software obsolescence. The depository library community considers the permanent Congressional Record one of the core documents of our democracy, one which should, at a minimum, be preserved in paper format for the free use of the public in every State. In addition, the bound Congressional Record Index, which is produced as part of the permanent Congressional Record set, has been distributed to 876 depository libraries."

This distribution will also be affected by the reductions directed in the FY 1997 legislative branch appropriations act language. Inasmuch as the $100,000 limitation on printing the bound CR would cover only 56 sets, it was assumed that the FDLP would get only CD-ROM. We have prepared a letter for the Joint Committee on Printing apprising them of the details of the current bound Record distribution, and requesting direction on how the few remaining paper copies are to be apportioned. One solution could be that JCP might direct GPO to continue producing the 62 sets of the bound Record for depositories, but to accomplish this within existing funding.

LPS Staffing

No doubt some of you are aware of our interest in hiring new inspectors, and in talking to people interested in working as Expert Consultants on temporary appointments, but I think you should know what the LPS staffing situation is in general. In the past year, we've lost about 10% of our staff, from retirements or people getting hired into other areas of GPO. Mr. Carl Redd, long-time Chief of our Distribution Division retired in January, and he's greatly missed. But we've also lost inspectors, depository line workers, a fork lift driver, microfiche technicians, a claims clerk, a shipping list data processor, a cataloger, and a program analyst. Some of these positions simply will not be refilled, and the workload must be absorbed by the existing staff. Other positions, especially those for professional librarians, are so specialized that they must be filled with outside hires. Even though we are thankful to be able to recruit for these jobs, the process takes a long time to complete.

The staffing situation in LPS reflects the trend in GPO as a whole. In the mid-1970's, GPO employed nearly 8,500 persons. Today, we have 3,680 on board, and expect to be down to 3,600 by the end of the fiscal year, fewer than at any time in this century. In the past four years, GPO's staffing has been reduced by 25%.

Financial Situation

Last Tuesday (Feb. 11), the Public Printer testified before the House Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations. For FY 1998, we are requesting $30.5 million for the four programs funded by the Superintendent of Documents appropriation: Depository Library Distribution, Cataloging and Indexing, International Exchange, and By-Law Distribution. This is an increase of $1.4 million, or 4.8% over the amount approved for FY 1997. Most of the increase is related to price level increases, pay, and related costs. Of the $30.5 million, 85% is for the FDLP, 12% for Cataloging and Indexing, and less that 2% each for By-Law Distribution and International Exchange.

As we predicted during our planning sessions, we are seeing increases in spending related to expanding the capacity of the GPO Access system, acquiring, processing and mounting electronic source data files, and CD-ROM software licensing fees. The public testimony was heard on February 12, and we appreciate the support for our request expressed by Bob Oakley, of Georgetown University Law Library, who presented the combined statement on behalf of the Library Associations. At this point, of course, we don't know what the outcome of the appropriations process will be, but we feel confident that we will be able to continue to operate the FDLP and keep the electronic transition moving.

Good morning. As you know, I am currently the team leader of the Electronic Transition Staff (ETS), of the Library Programs Service (LPS) at GPO. Our mission is to work with other GPO staff to plan and implement a successful transition of the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) into the electronic age.

What I would like to discuss this morning are the specific projects in which my ETS colleagues (Lee Morey, Joe Paskoski and Sandy Schwalb) are involved. These projects can be divided into four general categories:

1) pathway services
2) partnerships
3) FDLP Administration pages on GPO Access, and
4) sundry other projects that seem to absorb lots of time and attention (Sort of like the other duties as assigned in many of your job descriptions)

I will actually discuss these beginning with the last category, sundry projects as assigned.

1. SUNDRY PROJECTS AS ASSIGNED

USDA Digital Publications: Creating a Preservation Action Plan

One interesting project I am involved in is GPO's co-sponsorship of a working conference to plan for the preservation of U.S. Department of Agriculture information in digital formats. The meeting, scheduled for March 2-4, is being jointly sponsored by GPO, the National Library of Agriculture, Cornell University's Mann Library, the Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service, and the Farm Bureau. GPO will be sending three staff members to the conference: Gil Baldwin, T.C. Evans and me. The Superintendent of Documents will be one of the key speakers.

We have decided to participate in the USDA conference for two reasons. First, GPO will have the opportunity to share with conference participants GPO's plans and concerns regarding permanent public access to digital Government information products, both USDA products and products government wide. Second, GPO staff attending the meeting will be involved for two days in an intense discussion on preserving digital USDA information -- this discussion will address the major issues associated with digital preservation that GPO is itself currently exploring in its own planning for permanent access.

Department of Energy Reports in Electronic Format

As many of you know, on September 30, 1996, the Department of Energy (DOE) stopped distributing microfiche of between 12,000-15,000 reports from its Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) to the FDLP. Since early October, OSTI has been delivering to GPO a single image file of each report rather than sending fiche directly to the 200 plus libraries that select the reports.

GPO staff continue to examine various avenues through which to make the enormous number of DOE reports available through the FDLP. We learned in January that a new director of OSTI came on board, so we have decided to contact him to discuss the continued partnership between GPO and DOE and alternatives for making the DOE reports available. At a meeting last week, Sandy Schwalb, who has been working on the DOE/OSTI project, had an opportunity to run into the new director of OSTI, Dr. Walter Warnick. She mentioned that GPO staff is interested in talking with him and I am pleased to report that we have a meeting set up between Dr. Warnick and Wayne Kelley, set for early in March. We plan to reopen some of the questions we have raised with DOE/OSTI staff over the past several months about how best to make this information available.

So where are these reports now? The truth is, the DOE situation has been a very hard nut to crack--but we continue to brainstorm. We can hopefully soon have at least a short term solution to announce.

Interagency Agreement with NCLIS

In mid-December, Rep. Bill Thomas, then Chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP), formally approved GPO's proposed Assessment of Standards for Creation and Dissemination and Permanent Access of Electronic Government Information Products. This assessment is, give or take a little for the passage of time, the assessment of standards that was recommended in the draft Transition Plan GPO published last January. The assessment will be conducted by the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) as per an Interagency Agreement approved by the Joint Committee on Printing. LPS staff , including Sandy Schwalb, who is the staff contact person for the assessment, have met with the Executive Director of NCLIS, Peter Young, on a number of occasions as he prepares to select a contractor to produce a Statement of Work which will define how the assessment will be carried out. Once the statement of work is completed, a contractor will be selected to perform the assessment according to the statement of work. Peter Young will be here later this morning to provide a brief overview of the assessment and where NCLIS is in the planning process. A summary of the Interagency Agreement between GPO and NCLIS is available in the back of the room.

2. FDLP ADMINISTRATION PAGES

With Joe Paskoski in the lead, ETS continues to work with Robin Haun-Mohamed's Depository Administration staff to enhance and expand upon pages on GPO Access which assist depository librarians in the ongoing administration of their collections. At this time the FDLP Administration site contains most major LPS publications and the FDLP Administration Web site has been redesigned with a new banner for each page and a more user friendly, space saving main page.

Several Examples

The Item Lister is now live, out of test mode, and allows individuals to enter a depository library number and create an online list of the depository's current item numbers. We have already received a few suggestions on how to enhance Item Lister. Suggestions are always welcome.

On another project we are working on the creation of a Web form system that will allow depositories to amend their item number selections on the Web. From the LPS perspective this is a great product, for as well as providing libraries a convenient mechanism for amending item selections, it saves the Depository Administration Branch staff many hours of keyboard work. An interesting side effect of this project is that it has brought together staff from various divisions of GPO. Hopefully additional projects will derive from this current cooperative effort. The tentative target for completion of this project is May, 1997, in time to incorporate this product into the annual selection update cycle.

And a quick note. A new WWW page being developed at the recommendation of the Depository Library Council will be the Depository Library Council's home page. Parts of this have begun trickling in from Susan Dow and these should soon be pieced together and hosted on the GPO server.

3. PARTNERSHIPS

Shipping Lists

Probably the best news at this time regarding the FDLP Administration page is that the shipping list project is now live. This project, which came about as an agreement with the State University of New York at Buffalo and the University of Texas at Arlington to collaborate with LPS on a shipping list service, provides a great segue into the discussion of partnerships. This is the first FDLP partnership that is oriented toward providing services to assist librarians in their daily depository collection management. GPO is pleased to be working with David Nuzzo at Buffalo and Allen Bell in Texas on this project. Their skills and dedication, along with the cooperation and work of LPS staff, take advantage of new electronic technologies to enhance FDLP capabilities. We hope to initiate similar service oriented partnerships in the future.

We refer to these sorts of partnership in which enhanced services are provided to help in the administration of library collection as service partnerships. A second type of partnership is also being developed which involves partnering to provide access to Government information products held by FDLP libraries for remote access. I refer to these as content partnership to reflect the fact they provide remote access to the actual content of information products.

UIC DOS GPO Memorandum of Understanding

I have been working with John Shuler of the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) and Colleen Hope, Director, Office of Public Communication at the Department of State (DOS), to establish the first content partnership with a depository library in which the library makes a particular Federal Government information product available for access through the program. What has emerged is a proposed three-way partnership between GPO, UIC and DOS. Both John Shuler and Colleen Hope have tentatively agreed in principle upon a draft copy of a three-way memorandum of understanding establishing a partnership under which UIC will hold for permanent access electronic information products that migrate off the Department of State's Web site. As UIC will be acting as an FDLP partner, this partnership effectively captures these information products for permanent access through the FDLP.

The draft memo of understanding is currently has been forwarded to the Joint Committee on Printing for their approval. When approved by JCP, it will be sent to UIC and DOS.

4. PATHWAY SERVICES SUITE

Browse Topics

Yet another way the skills of the depository library community are contributing to the FDLP is through the Browse Topics Pathway Service that Lee Morey of ETS coordinates. Browse Topics is basically a Web based version of the Subject Bibliographies series familiar to depository librarians. I am happy to announce that eleven librarians have responded to our open invitation to adopt a topic. As I look at this project it seems to me an ideal starting point for new professionals to get a bit of recognition, or for librarians learning to develop their own Web pages to have a project on which they can hone their skills. As you will see on the handout in the back, which is the first page submitted by one of our volunteers, credit is clearly given to the individual who develops and maintains the page. Thanks to Phillip Slatterly for volunteering this.

Lee Morey has also been working on the Pathway Indexer. The new server is up and running and the service works remarkably better. On its last wander through the Internet the Indexer visited 809 Government Internet servers and collected 49,112 objects.

An addition to Pathway Services we are considering, but which is only in the talking phase, would be called something like Browse Federal Agencies. This page would provide a list of all Federal agencies and subagencies having Web sites, and link users to those sites. We realize that several librarians have done some excellent work along these lines, so we see this as a possible opportunity for partnering. I will be seeking input you might have on the Browse Agencies idea.

Conclusion

As you can see, ETS has been quite active in the partnering arena. As Federal agencies continue their migration toward producing materials in electronic formats, GPO, through LPS and ETS, will continue its push to ensure that the FDLP obtains these Government information products.

Finally, on a more personal note--can we talk? For me this past seven months has been a remarkable opportunity to see how things really work in GPO, and in DC in general. While there has been a lot of hard work, and there are some ups and downs, the work that I have been involved in has for the most part been exceptionally interesting. GPO is currently looking for someone to replace me--no, I'm not being terminated. I would encourage anyone who has a glimmer of an interest to talk with Jay Young or Gil Baldwin, or with Sandy Morton-Schwalb or me about the positions. Sandy, who is making faces at me in the back, will also be winding down her GPO tour this summer. Her position is also being filled.

Thank you.

Good morning. I would like to update you on the activities of Depository Services. While other units of the Library Programs Service (LPS) are primarily oriented toward the processing and distribution of publications, the focus of Depository Services is on the functioning of the individual libraries and their relation with each other and GPO.

Outreach

In conjunction with this ALA Midwinter meeting, the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) invites you to tour LPS and see a short demonstration of GPO Access services presented by the Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services. There will be two opportunities to visit GPO, both on Tuesday, February 18, at 9:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. with each session lasting about 90 minutes. An announcement of these tours appeared on GOVDOC-L, in the January 15 issue of Administrative Notes, and on flyers in the back of this room. As all visitors must be signed in at GPO and pre-registration will expedite issuing visitor badges, please see me at the conclusion of this program if you want to visit us.

The 10th annual Interagency Depository Seminar is planned for May 28-June 4, 1997 in Washington, D.C. "New" documents staff (three years or less experience in this field) are the target audience for this continuing education program. Sessions are conducted by GPO, Bureau of the Census, Office of the Federal Register, Patent and Trademark Office, National Ocean Service, U.S. Geological Survey, etc. The preliminary agenda and registration form was announced in the October 15, 1996 Administrative Notes and again in the January 15, 1997 issue and this information is available from the FDLP Administration page on GPO's Web site.

To date, we have received only 33 registrations while in the past we filled the room to capacity with 60 people. We think that the Federal Depository Conference in April is drawing away some attendance. There has been some informal discussion about offering the Interagency Depository Seminar every other year. In the meantime, there are still openings for "boot camp."

The 6th annual Federal Depository Library Conference will be held from April 14-17, 1997 at the Washington National Airport Hilton in Crystal City. The 50th meeting of the Depository Library Council will meet concurrently with the conference. The preliminary agenda for the conference was announced in the December 15, 1996 Administrative Notes, the FDLP Administration page on our Web site, and on GOVDOC-L. To date, 163 are registered (plus more than 40 speakers) even before the revised agenda appeared in the February 15, 1997 Administrative Notes and on the FDLP Administration web page. Thirty-three indicate that they are first time attendees, 30 are new to documents (three years or less experience) and 20 are new and first timers. The program continues to be a mixture of Federal agency electronic initiatives, presentations from documents librarians on their use of electronic Government information, bibliographic control issues, and innovative uses of the Web, and partnering and preservation issues. Proceedings from this conference will be issued in mid-1997 in print and on our web site.

Publications

The revised Superseded List was shipped to all depositories in October 1996. It is also available for downloading from the Federal Bulletin Board and the FDLP Administration web page. To date there has been 117 hits. There are still copies available in paper upon request.

GPO has submitted an article for the Federal Agency Reports section for the 1997 edition of the Bowker Annual. GPO has been included in the 1995 and 1996 editions of this publication.

The "Self-Study of a Federal Depository Library" was distributed as Federal Depository Library Manual Supplement 3 in October 1996. It is also available for downloading from the Federal Bulletin Board and the FDLP Administration web page and there have been 90 hits. We have already begun using the Self-Study to evaluate libraries.

Inspection Activities

Documents librarians and their directors, whose depository operations were last inspected in 1989, 1990, and a few in 1991, were notified in October 1996 to submit a self-study in December by fax, snail mail, or preferably e-mail. I was too ambitious and have received more than 150 of them to evaluate with just Gail Snider and me to do the work. In December and early January, I spent entirely too much time decoding reports which were UUencoded, Bin Hex code, using word processing software packages that no one in GPO had, etc. Some librarians e-mailed reports in ASCII of 800,000 bytes when the average was 50,000. I could not download the reports as the librarians had failed to remove images imbedded in the text. I was fixing margins, deleting unnecessary citations, non-applicable sections, and introductory material. Some libraries mailed the report on a diskette per instructions but I never got them. Other libraries faxed in the report then mailed another copy as well. Still others e-mailed the self-study then mailed lots of supplementary materials. There were even libraries which photocopied the Self-Study, handwrote their responses, and faxed or mailed back the information. Needless to say, these libraries did not report e-mail addresses and had very limited electronic equipment. The next time I request self-studies, snail mail is the preferred delivery method.

Of the 27 self-studies requested from California and Nevada libraries, we have examined 25; two libraries failed to submit any report. What happens to these depository library operations? They will be inspected and also fail the Cooperative Efforts category in the audit. Only one library of 25 requested an inspection because they want to "show off" all the improvements made since our last on-site examination. Three of the libraries will be evaluated even though they submitted "good" self-studies because they have never been inspected before and we want a baseline for comparison. Several of the libraries are being inspected in March as a result of deficiencies noted in their self-studies. Each of the 25 will receive a letter with our recommendations for improvement. Even those we plan to inspect will receive a letter pointing out deficiencies, some of which can be rectified before the inspector arrives. The remaining 125+ self-studies will be reviewed, libraries contacted, etc., but we cannot give you an exact time line as the April extravaganza, May Interagency Seminar, and selecting and training two new inspectors will take up a lot of our time.

Later this spring the depository libraries last inspected in 1991 in the following states will be notified to submit a Self-Study: Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, New York, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.

As I just noted, there are two library inspector vacancies. The position announcement appeared on GOVDOC-L, in the January 15, 1997 Administrative Notes, and on a notice in the shipment boxes. The closing date for submitting applications is February 28. If any of you in the audience are thinking of applying, or have submitted your resume, please see me after the conclusion of this program. I have copies of the job announcement, position description, and even the application form with me. During the next few days, it may be possible that we can arrange some time for talking about the realities of the position, working for the Federal Government, living in the metro DC area, conducting an interview, etc.

Biennial Survey

Under Title 44, U.S.C. section 1909, "designated depository libraries shall report to the Superintendent of Documents at least every two years concerning their condition." Since 1947, the Biennial Survey of Depository Libraries has been that instrument.

In September 1997, we plan to issue the next "Biennial Survey." While the Teleform fax software worked well in 1995, and it may well be used in 1997, we are investigating the feasibility of conducting the survey using the World Wide Web.

New Electronic Services

Good morning. I am the last of the GPO speakers for this update session and I will try to keep this short. What a year it's been already. In January 1997, Library Programs Service (LPS) instituted two new services that we hope have already made your life easier in the area of program administration. The new Item Lister service available off the FDLP Administration Web page creates a listing of active item selection numbers for a depository library. This listing can be viewed from the screen or downloaded for use off the Internet. Information on the screen also includes the total number of items selected by the profiled library and the library's item selection rate based on current active item numbers. This is a service which must be updated with information from the DDIS database on a regular basis. We are currently updating the files once a month, usually around the middle of the month.

The second new service is a breakthrough for LPS. For years I've heard the requests to put shipping list information online for libraries to use before they receive their shipment boxes. Shipping list information for all formats of products distributed through the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) is now available for the first time on the Federal Bulletin Board. LPS is also working with SUNY Buffalo and the University of Texas - Arlington to make shipping list information available in .html format. This site also provides depository libraries with a number of options to customize the shipping list to a library's item selection profile.

We are very excited about this shared partnership and urge all who have not yet had a chance to look at this site to take a few minutes and see how your library can utilize and build on the work of these fine institutions. I have brought a handout with the URL for the FBB and WWW sites for shipping list information that I hope will prove helpful. If you have any recommendations for improvement or changes, please send these along to me and we will work with our partners to refine the services.

Office Renovation

Let me also update you on the status of the big move in the Depository Administration Branch (DAB). Since the second week of December, our staff have been located on three floors and in every nook and cranny while the office where the Acquisitions & Classification staff are generally located has been renovated. And the results are impressive. Thanks to all who have been putting up with our temporary quarters. Effective Monday, all classifiers will have a Pentium computer with a CD-ROM drive and access to the Internet, as well as e-mail and mainframe access. This is such an improvement over what we have had in the past. During the renovation, an Internet capable computer has been more dear than gold. We still have a time of adjustment for many of the Publication Management Specialists as they learn to mine the net and focus on their agencies' home pages and new resources.

And beginning next week or so, the staff in the Micrographics Control Section, and the three Publication Management Specialists who have been focusing on fugitive documents and Internet products will also be moving to temporary locations while the other office room is repainted, recarpeted, and connected to the mainframe and the Internet. I will be joining the ranks of the displaced persons with this move, but my phone will be forwarded and the fax and e-mail will continue to operate. Once we move back into the room, I eagerly await introduction to that wonderful invention known as "voice mail."

Just a timely reminder here for operational issues. The two fax numbers, (202) 512-1636 and 512-0877 for DAB will continue to operate during this time, both feeding into one machine. Please fax your claims to 512-1429. Since we had the problem with the claims fax machine early this fall, I continue to receive many claims over the machines in my area. It delays the filling of the claims as they must be batched and sent to claims for correct disposition.

Claims

Increasingly I have been asked for information on how to submit claims electronically for depository material. At this point we do not have a claims module in place. Each of the individual products we have brought up play a part in the overall ability to have an effective electronic claims process. Some libraries are sending claims over the fax machines from the shipping lists site of our partners at SUNY, Buffalo and UTA, but please do not do this. The shipping lists do not look the same, information is often missing, as is the case with many claims in October where title information was not included in the service. It is acceptable to submit a claim via fax from the U.S. FaxWatch Service. Just be sure to handwrite your library's name and address on each one submitted as that space is usually cut off on the FaxWatch copy. We intend to automate the claims process, but we are not prepared to receive, research, or fill claims as an electronic transaction at this time.

Automated Item Selection

One of the next processes we hope to automate via the Web is the item selection changes for the annual update cycle. Staff in Production along with staff on the Electronics Transition Staff in LPS are working on automating the green card changes via the Web. Libraries will be able to update their item selection profile by keying in their changes directly on the Web. These changes would then be batched and submitted to the Depository Distribution Information System (DDIS) to modify their library's profile. Additions to a library's profile would take effect after the beginning of the new fiscal year, but deletions would take effect essentially the next working day for paper, electronics and separates, and at the beginning of the next quarter for microfiche material. We are hoping to have this active for the 1998 update cycle, but are not yet sure if it will be ready in time. Look for further information on this in upcoming issues of the Administrative Notes and in the packet of material sent to each library in April for the annual update cycle.

Electronic Transition

As we continue the transition to a more electronic Federal Depository Library Program, our staff continue to deal with policy issues and concerns as we identify them. I appreciate the time and effort you take to advise LPS of the problems you perceive and appreciate your patience as we work through these issues. Clarification of the differences between E, EL, and Online in the List of Classes and the Administrative Notes Technical Supplement is something we have been working on for a while. Essentially, "E" in the List of Classes and the Administrative Notes is being used to indicate the material is available in an electronic format. This means products will be available only in an electronic format-- either a tangible format or via an Internet site. When multiple formats are listed, as in the Open File Reports, material may be distributed in any of the formats listed. Recent issues of the Administrative Notes Technical Supplement have had a number of entries with format changes as we proceed through the clean-up of the List of Classes. We will soon have an article in the Administrative Notes providing further details on this topic.

We have begun implementing discontinuance of serial publications in a tangible format when a reliable, official, online version is identified. These are mainly periodical titles distributed in microfiche format or titles with time sensitive deadlines. You will see these in upcoming issues of the Administrative Notes Technical Supplement under the "Update to the List of Classes, Miscellaneous" column.

Before a title is discontinued we check the current Web site to be sure older issues are maintained and that the new issues are complete, and we advise the agency of the change. Other resources that are being discontinued are titles included on a tangible product, such as the Energy InfoDisc. Most of these titles on the CD-ROM were distributed in a microfiche format. There are approximately 180 titles on the EIA disc, and while we are not discontinuing all of them in paper or microfiche format at this time, we are beginning to identify and discontinue some. There are also a few paper titles being discontinued, where we have been able to stop the paper issues at the end of the year or the final issue for the current volume. Again, these are titles with lower item selection counts, and that are posted to the Internet in a much more timely manner than they have been sent to the libraries in the past. Please be assured, we are not discontinuing titles at this time with high item selection counts, popular interest topics, or where it appears the agency will not maintain the material for a significant period of time. If an agency is pulling the older issue when a new issue is put up, this title is not a candidate for conversion at this time.

Some specific examples of titles distributed to FDLs in an electronic only format are Methyl Bromide Alternatives, STAT-USA: the Newsletter, BISNIS Bulletin, AFIP Letter, List of Serials Indexed for Online Users, Social Security Programs Throughout the World, Military Review, and the Postal Bulletin. Please note some of these have not been distributed through the program before; they are new and will only be distributed via the Internet, while others were distributed in microfiche and paper formats. And some of the changes to Internet only titles have been made by the agency, not by LPS, as in the case of the List of Serials Indexed for Online Users.

Fugitive Documents and New Electronic Products

I want to thank the depository community for continuing to provide information to LPS on fugitive products that should be considered for inclusion in the program. In the last year we have seen the impact depository librarians can have on helping to obtain specific products for the program. For example, Big Emerging Markets, need I say more? Shortly after we met in New York, LPS was given sufficient copies for full paper distribution to the depository libraries. Hispanics-Latinos: Diverse People in a Multicultural Society; Current Population Reports 1995 was distributed to the libraries on shipping list 97-0128-P dated Feb. 4, 1997. Population of States and Counties of the United States: 1790 - 1990 was distributed in late July 1996. All three of these titles have been obtained for inclusion in the program because a depository librarian had an "inquiring" mind. Some of the outstanding titles we continue to work on obtaining for inclusion in the program include the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS, the new SIC Manual) and the Food Code from the Department of Agriculture.

I am also pleased to note the progress that has been made with some agencies that in the past have not provided electronic resources for distribution to the libraries, including the Department of Transportation, the Library of Congress, and NASA. All have been working with LPS to identify new electronic products that are appropriate for distribution to the libraries. Some of these products include CCSDS, Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems, Traffic Safety on CD-ROM, United States Waterway Data, Braille Book Review Talking Book Topics on floppy diskette, and the French Posters from World War I.

There is one additional product I'd like to review with you today. LPS has been successful in obtaining source files of the Daily Treasury Statement for mounting on GPO Access as a test project. The product looks good and we are continuing to work with Treasury to develop a timeline for when the daily paper product can be discontinued. This is a significant achievement because GPO has obtained the source files and can control future retention and access policies for the electronic files.

Libraries should have received the first issue of the FBIS on CD-ROM. We are very excited to have been given this opportunity to distribute this title to the libraries. But we are unsure if we will be able to continue this product as the software will be changing and at this time GPO does not have an agreement with the software vendor to pay for the royalties associated with this product. As Gil discussed earlier, the costs of software royalty fees are increasingly becoming stumbling blocks to obtaining the material for distribution to the libraries. One way agencies can assist with these costs is to establish agreements with software companies to have the depository libraries' copies included under the agency's overall acceptance of the software package. The costs for royalties would then be paid by the publishing agency, thus avoiding the software stumbling block. We are working with the CIA to have a change made to the existing program for the FBIS on CD-ROM. If you have tried this product and found it helpful, please relay this information back to the agency. This feedback may be instrumental in continuing distribution of the product through the Program.

Of course, sometimes this feedback can prevent a product from disappearing and sometimes it cannot. The 1996 CIA World Factbook will not be issued in print format; the CD-ROM version should be out this spring. We had hopes until earlier this week that the agency would be producing a paper version for 1997, but were just advised that the agency will not be producing the 1997 edition in paper format either.

As Mr. Kelley discussed, the increasing movement to privatize information continues to present special challenges for the Acquisitions and Classification Section. We saw this begin several years ago with the Cancer Grams, but lately I've had several other inquiries on products and services that in the past were depository, but have now been taken over by a private company, thus removing the information from the public domain. In December, LPS was advised that the Journal of the National Cancer Institute would no longer be available for distribution through the FDLP. Libraries wishing to continue to receive this title will need to contact the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and pay to become a member of the NCI Information Associates Program. This is being done under a CRADA (Cooperative Research and Development Agreement) between the NCI and Oxford University Press-USA, Inc.

Census investigated producing a CD-ROM version of the Historical Statistics of the United States, under a CRADA between the Bureau of the Census and Cambridge University Press. In this agreement, copies were supposed to be made available for depository libraries. Cambridge University Press did not make these available. The CD-ROM version is not an official Census product and the plans for updating the resource to include current information is not being done under any agreement between Cambridge University Press and the Bureau of the Census.

LPS is continuing to have discussions with staff from the USGS to about the Digital Raster Graphic (DRG) maps in CD-ROM format. Errors were discovered in the headers for the CD-ROM products last summer. GPO was advised of the errors and we decided to go back and replicate all the issues that had already been distributed. A second set of errors was then discovered and at that time GPO was advised by USGS the DRGs were on hold until a decision could be made as to their future for the replication program. Due to budget limitations, USGS advised LPS earlier this fall that they would not be replicating the DRGs through GPO. USGS will produce a Compact Disc-Recordable ( CD-R), or "one-off" themselves as needed for customers of their Sales database. The DRGs will not be coming through the program for replication. USGS advised LPS they would however provide a CD-R for LPS to make a master and replicate for distribution to the libraries.

The economics of this decision are tremendous. There are approximately 945 CD-ROMs to be produced for this series. The cost of making a master of each CD-ROM is between $350 -$600 per master, with replication costs and distribution costs needing also to be factored into the equation. This is a big step backward for the transition to an electronic FDLP, and it is possibly the future trend for the DOQ's and other products from USGS databases. We will be meeting with staff from the National Mapping Division, USGS later this month in an attempt to keep this vast body of material in the program.

One positive result to pass along concerns the Environmental Health Perspectives. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences advised GPO it was going to utilize its authority to have this product produced outside GPO by a private publisher. GPO was advised copies would no longer be available for distribution to the depository libraries or for inclusion in the Sales Program because of this change. LPS contacted the editor and verified that they did want to continue to provide copies for the FDLs if at all possible. We have confirmed paper copies will be provided for the Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) and the Supplement for distribution to the libraries. And sales copies will be obtained from the private publisher for continued inclusion in the Sales Program. As in the case of the JCNI, the EHP is being folded into a larger database service. At the time when the database is ready for release, staff from LPS and EHP will work together to provide depository access to the new database.

I believe it is important to close on a positive note--with all of the changes and transition in progress its easy to think "my input can't mean much," but without the will to try we are already defeated. And as this last example shows, my very favorite response to librarians asking about fugitive documents is "it never hurts to ask!" The NOAA Tide Tables, the FBIS on CD-ROM, and now the Environmental Health Perspectives, have all continued to be distributed through the program because we asked!

Good morning. I am pleased to have this opportunity to provide an update on Cataloging Branch operations and to be available for questions during our meeting. Thank you Dena for inviting me to provide a review of our operations. In particular, I join others in thanking you for creating an opportunity for people to hear the perspectives of Steve Uthoff, our administrative librarian for cataloging policies, and two of our catalogers, Mike Levinson and Bob Luoma, regarding our Internet cataloging initiatives.

Given a full schedule and our keen interest in hearing from Erik Jul, of OCLC, and Eliot Christian of USGS, and other program participants, I will try to be brief. This overview will include remarks concerning cataloging related activities, dissemination of Monthly Catalog records, and the potential use of PURLs for maintaining online access to Internet documents.

Cataloging Operations

Since our fiscal year began in October, 1996, we have continued to witness and to become increasingly involved with the increased use of the Internet as a publishing medium for Federal agencies. Statistical information indicates a continuing decline in the number of physical forms with a continuing and dramatic increase in the number of titles with website locations.

Overall, the number of titles to be cataloged has declined from previous years. Last year our total count for work to be cataloged was 32,102 titles. The total work processed related to 35,425 pieces of work. Of this figure, approximately 433 titles were associated with Internet sites.

In the current fiscal year, from October 1996 through the end of this January, we received 9,904 pieces of work. Annualized projections for this figure suggest that we may receive approximately 29,712 pieces of work during this fiscal year. To date, we have processed 6,874 pieces. Of this number, 5,734 titles have been cataloged. Of these titles cataloged, approximately 734 titles are related to Internet titles.

Internet Titles

Many of these 734 Internet related titles were held in save files during FY 1996 and were produced this fiscal year (awaiting the resolution of some GPO website related problems. Nonetheless, it appears that production of Internet related Monthly Catalog records during the first four months of this fiscal year has exceeded all Internet related records produced during the previous fiscal year.

As of the present time, approximately 1,200 Monthly Catalog records contain URL data. Of this number approximately 50 records do not connect to sites as of the first week in January, 1997. While this is not a major number of problem URLs, efforts to resolve these URLs, either by finding a more recent URL or by determining that the title is no longer available via the Internet, has taken considerable time and effort. I will discuss PURLs and how this technology may be used later in my remarks.

A recent review of our site indicates that approximately 112 Monthly Catalog records with URLs were produced for only an Internet document and are not associated with any physical form. Approximately 1,088 records are associated with both physical forms and Internet versions.

Work to be Cataloged

At the present time, our cataloging backlog consists of approximately 3,238 titles. This information is based on an inventory that was conducted last Thursday, February 13th. Approximately 58 of these titles are Internet related.

We currently catalog most Internet related and paper titles within approximately one week of receipt or notification. Microfiche and CD-ROMs continue to be cataloged within approximately two weeks after receipt. The backlog of Internet titles that I had reported during the fall meeting of the Depository Library Council has been cleared.

We continue to focus efforts to assure that cataloging occurs soon after notification or receipt of titles and we maintain these objectives even as some catalogers leave or retire. Within the last six months, one cataloger has transferred to another organization within the Library Programs Service and one person has retired. We have recently posted a vacant cataloger position and have brought some copies of the announcement to our meeting to encourage interest. We may post yet another vacancy to preclude cataloging backlogs.

With limited personnel resources, our policies for cataloging Internet related titles both conform to CONSER policies and make it possible for us to catalog titles soon after receipt or notification and to avoid major backlogs. Our policies provide electronic access via records with Internet related notes and hot linked URLs. I have been pleased to work with Jean Hirons, Acting CONSER Coordinator, and with Steve Uthoff and others in our Cataloging Branch in joint efforts to develop policies.

We have brought some copies of our policies for cataloging electronic files for your review. these policies are consistent with both national policies and traditional practices associated with the GPO Cataloging Guidelines.

Although a number of people have contributed to developing our policies, these policies would not exist without Steve Uthoff's knowledge, experience, and exceptional and committed efforts. These policies are important documents that will guide our work for many years. Thank you Steve for your excellent work in this regard. In the near future, we expect to publish an electronic version of these policies to add to several other cataloging policies now available at the FDLP Administrative page.

Given the interest in Internet publishing, I would like to take a moment and summarize our approach to cataloging Internet titles.

First, we catalog Internet related titles as personnel of the Depository Administration Branch (DAB) notify us of titles.

We do not devote valuable resources to surfing the net and rely on DAB personnel to validate electronic titles and notify us of their location, class number, and other essential information.

We produce records at the full level for serials and maps and at the abridged or "K" level for non-serials. Records include class numbers, item numbers, and SuDocs numbers.

If a physical form record is already available when we are notified of an Internet version, we update the physical form record with a note regarding Internet availability in the 530 note field and with a URL in the 856 field. URLs are hot-linked from our website edition of the Monthly Catalog. (If the physical form record is full level, we conform to OCLC instructions and do not remove existing information to make the record conform to "K" level specifications).

If a physical form record is not available, we create a record for the electronic Internet title at "I" (full) or "K" level (abridged) depending upon whether or not the title is a serial.

If a record for an electronic-only Internet title record is available and physical forms are issued after an electronic title has been cataloged, we update the existing record with an 074 field (item number reflecting the format), and a 530 "other formats available note" and produce the record again. Such records will have multiple item numbers.

In some instances, as in the case of a title that is very well known and of major importance, we may, based upon a subjective evaluation, create separate records that reflect such versions.

We do not have adequate personnel resources to consistently produce separate records for each format of every title. We hope that people understand these limitations and find this approach to be suitable. In important respects, our policies for using a single record to reflect Internet and physical form versions of a title is similar to our long-standing policy of using a single record to reflect paper and microfiche versions of the same title.

Monthly Catalog Dissemination

Before moving on to a brief statement concerning PURLs, I would like to provide some information regarding the website and CD-ROM editions of the Monthly Catalog.

Our CD-ROM edition of the Monthly Catalog has entered its second year with a cumulation of approximately 21,672 records. Approximately 19,382 records reflect 1996 cataloging production and 2,290 records reflect production in January of 1997. This is our first combined year edition. Each issue includes Periodical Supplements for 1996 and 1997. We expect to publish monthly editions of several complete years of accumulated records as we move towards the next century.

Also, we have another first. We now have an opportunity to include the Congressional Serial Set Catalog (102nd Congress) as a searchable file as part of the CD-ROM edition of the Monthly Catalog. If we publish the Congressional Serial Set Catalog in CD-ROM only, we should save approximately $30,000 to $35,000 by eliminating the paper edition. This is not a great sum of money, but elimination of a paper edition would help to further reduce program costs. We would be pleased to hear your advice with regard to this opportunity.

Our Monthly Catalog website edition, (located at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/adpos400.html), contains approximately 80,665 records. Approximately 1,200 of these records contain hot-linked URLs.

PURLs

No description of current operations would be complete without some mention of PURLs, or Persistent Uniform Resource Locators. With the significant number of Monthly Catalog records with URLs, PURLs are of interest to us because use of OCLC's PURLs software would provide us with an alternative to replacing records each time a URL within records changes. However, although PURLs may seem to be magic because they provide users with a seamless redirection to a current address, PURLs are not. We all know that, to be of value, a PURL server must be maintained through the efforts of those who keep URLs current.

Not wishing to undertake a project without a thorough review of its implications for our limited number of staff, we are carefully reviewing how this project should be undertaken within the Library Programs Service.

We appreciate Erik Jul's assistance and advice with regard to PURLs and look forward to continued discussions as we move in this direction.