LPS is phasing out the physical distribution of certain FDLP microfiche titles and migrating to the online version, when an official, reliable electronic version is available. As part of this migration process, LPS is identifying groups of titles that agencies issue in both print and online versions. When LPS determines that the content of the online version is substantially equivalent or superior to the print version, LPS selects the online version for the FDLP.

LPS staff met with personnel from the General Accounting Office (GAO) and determined that nearly all GAO publications are available online, either from the GAO website or from GPO Access. Therefore, except for unusual cases, LPS will discontinue distributing GAO publications in microfiche as of September 30, 2000.

LPS will also discontinue distribution of the Congressional Bills on microfiche effective with the last of the 106^th Congress Bills. Bills are permanently accessible on GPO Access beginning with the 103^rd Congress.

In light of problems with batching, misdirected shipments, delayed receipts and resulting processing problems for depository libraries, LPS elected not to exercise its contract option year with Potomac Business Center (PBC). Previous mail contracts have covered all GPO mailers and were not specific to the needs of the Federal Depository Library Program. Unfortunately, this resulted in more generic contractual language with insufficient safeguards for quality service to libraries. However, because of the many inconsistencies in the performance of this past contract, LPS is now able to segregate its pick up and delivery requirements and has completed a much-strengthened Statement of Work to begin the procurement process for an upcoming mailing contract. GPO’s Procurement Office announced the requirement for pick up and delivery services in the Commerce Business Daily on March 2, 2000. In addition, LPS began date stamping all outgoing boxes in early March, and is also upgrading its TanData system to increase the ability to track depository materials from the time shipments leave GPO to the time shipments arrive at depository libraries. All changes should be in place by mid-June, 2000.

In the meantime, LPS has sent some shipments to depository libraries through the U.S. Postal Service as well as through PBC, resulting in a mixture of deliveries from UPS and some from the Postal Service. Library processing staff who detect any anomalies or errors in their shipments should contact Ms. Vicki Barber, Chief of LPS’ Depository Distribution Division, at 202-512-1014, or by e-mail at <vbarber@gpo.gov>.

The raw data from the 1999 Biennial Survey of Depository Libraries is available for downloading from the Federal Bulletin Board (FBB). There are four files:

1. Text of the Biennial Survey (file name: s99text.rtf).
2. Optional questions and answers (file name: s99optn.csv).
3. Survey questions and answers, excluding the optional questions (file name: s99main.csv).
4. Survey key (file name: s99key.rtf).

Depository librarians can use the data to compare their depository operations with others in their peer group or within their state or region. LPS plans to issue a written report entitled "Biennial Survey of Depository Libraries: 1999 Results" later this year.

The FBB can be reached at <http://fedbbs.access.gpo.gov/libs/lps_info.htm>; by dial-in on 202-512-1387; by telnet to <fedbbs.access.gpo.gov>; or FTP to <ftp://fedbbs.access.gpo.gov>.

In August 1999, libraries receiving the bound Congressional Record were directed to return specific volumes of the Record to GPO for rebinding. The volumes have been over-sewn and are in the process of being returned to each library. Libraries should expect to see the volumes back in their libraries by the end of April.

These important products will be distributed to depository libraries:

• U. S. Industry and Trade Outlook, C 61.48:, Item 0215-L-08. Copies are expected in GPO shortly after April 30, 2000.

• NOAA Diving Manual, C 55.8:D 64/, Item 0250- E-15. This publication is to be printed this summer.

In addition, Mental Health: A Report of The Surgeon General, 1999, HE 20.402:M 52/2, item 0497-D-01, was distributed on shipping list 2000-0134-P, dated 2/10/2000.

In January, officials of the Library of Congress’s Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) asked GPO to become members of the BIBliographic COoperative (BIBCO) of the national Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC). In March, GPO map and monograph catalogers completed two days of BIBCO training. GPO is now a member of all four PCC components: BIBCO, CONSER (Cooperative Online Serials) Program, NACO (Name Authority Cooperative) and SACO (Subject Authority Cooperative).

Membership in BIBCO means that GPO PCC map and monograph records will be accepted, with little or no review, by the Library of Congress and the other national libraries. To be coded PCC, all access points of map and monograph records must be represented by authority work. In keeping with our policy of establishing personal name authorities for only congressional publications, most of GPO’s PCC coded records will be restricted to maps and congressional publications.

OCLC has recently granted GPO National Level Enhanced Status. This status authorizes GPO catalogers to modify all OCLC records, including those produced by the national libraries.

In January 2000, GPO joined OCLC’s CORC (Cooperative Online Resource Catalog) project. From 1999 through the present, OCLC has extracted data from more than 4,000 GPO produced OCLC records with PURLs (Persistent Uniform Resource Locators) for inclusion in the CORC database. Membership in CORC entitles GPO to contribute to OCLC’s development of CORC’s data extraction software and other software features and to evaluate CORC for potential LPS applications.

Responses to Fall 1999
Depository Library Council Recommendations

Council recommends that the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) evaluate and report on the technological capabilities of the depository libraries to provide cost-effective public access to electronic Government information products. This will include using information from the 1997 and 1999 Biennial Surveys about the costs and availability of equipment, software, telecommunications, staff training and other depository library expenses for accessing and utilizing electronic Government information products through the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP).

Rationale: In the Progress Report on the Transition to a More Electronic FDLP 1996-1999, GPO reported the Biennial Survey includes questions on the technological readiness of Depository Libraries. Council would like a qualitative assessment of the technological capabilities of depository libraries.

Response: GPO has analyzed the relevant data from responses to the 1999 Biennial Survey of depository libraries. Of 1,335 responding libraries, 1,274 (95.4%) meet the requirements for public access to electronic information provided through the FDLP. This requirement is based on the 1996 "Recommended Specifications for Public Access Workstations" which specifies a low-end Pentium-chip PC workstation. The 1999 survey responses show continued improvement compared to the results of the 1995 and 1997 Biennial Surveys. In 1995 only 38% of the responding depository libraries reported offering graphical Web access to the public, but by 1997 88% reported having this capability.

Over the corresponding time period the FDLP has evolved to the point at which the majority of new products disseminated to depositories are in online electronic format. GPO is concerned that 61 libraries (4.6%) still do not offer even a minimal level of public access to FDLP electronic content. Of even greater concern is that 22 of the 268 (8.2%) public libraries do not meet this expectation.

GPO has not yet analyzed the responses to the 1999 Biennial Survey optional questions on costs. Data on responses to the cost questions will be included in the published report on the 1999 survey.

Council recommends that GPO report at the Spring 2000 Depository Library Council Meeting on the status of records disposition of depository publications cataloged in the Monthly Catalog, including electronic files for publications with no paper copy, microfilm, or microfiche equivalent, and the related file documentation.

Rationale: The GPO collection of depository publications cataloged in the Monthly Catalog is a valuable resource in terms of options for permanent public access. Council encourages GPO's efforts to ensure appropriate records management practices for these publications and would like to be kept current on progress in this area.

Response: Under the provisions of the Federal Records Act, government agencies are required to take a variety of actions that ensure that the essential evidence of the functions of the government is appropriately preserved by the agency and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). NARA and agencies work together to develop records retention schedules which guide the life cycle of records and the process of selecting which records are permanently retained and which are destroyed.

Tangible government information products in all formats that have been cataloged by LPS are subject to these requirements as essential evidence of GPO carrying out its statutory function of cataloging and indexing.

In 1995 records officers in GPO Support Services initiated a request to NARA to schedule the disposition of publications with no paper, microfilm, or microfiche equivalent (primarily CD-ROM and floppy disks) accumulated from the cataloging activity. In order for electronic products to be eligible for transfer to NARA, the products must meet certain requirements, principally that data must be in a format independent of any software (such as retrieval software). The most common manifestation of this requirement is ASCII text. As issued by their publishing agencies, very few products in the FDLP meet this requirement.

During the review process, the request for records scheduling was withdrawn and has not, to date, been reactivated. NARA advised GPO that "[a]t this time, it is not feasible to complete our appraisal of these records as many technical, legal, and organizational issues relating to the preservation of electronic information products and digital publications are still pending." However, in the absence of a records schedule providing otherwise, such records are considered permanent and must, by law, be retained by the agency. Therefore, tangible FDLP electronic products are being retained by LPS.

In accordance with existing records schedules, print and microfiche Government publications cataloged by LPS are regularly transferred to NARA in four-year increments that coincide with presidential terms. Each four-year block of print publications must be interfiled into a continuous sequence in Superintendent of Documents classification number order. This requirement also applies to the microfiche copies transferred to NARA. The three most recent blocks, consisting of publications cataloged during the 1984-1996 presidential terms, were prepared for transfer to NARA by private sector contractors. The GPO material in Record Group 287 is first transferred to NARA’s Washington National Records Center, and later is accessioned by NARA for public access. GPO is working with NARA to review certain NARA concerns over the accession and interfiling of products transferred to NARA during the 1980’s, and these concerns are being addressed within NARA and GPO.

For electronic files for which no tangible equivalent is in the FDLP, the application of NARA requirements is still unclear. Records retention schedules are still based on actual custody rather than the concept of a virtual collection. Standards for electronic records are still evolving. GPO’s concern in this area will be for the files we place in the FDLP Electronic Collection archive. GPO will be working to assure that our practices conform to NARA’s requirements to preserve the evidence of this function. GPO’s discussions with NARA on the relationship between our permanent public access initiatives and permanency of records are ongoing.

Council recommends that GPO evaluate and define the future role of GPO Access Gateways.

Rationale: GPO encouraged depository libraries to become GPO Access Gateways in order to expand free public access to GPO Access. Gateway libraries expend time and resources in this effort, which still requires all gateways to update their sites with links to all GPO Access databases. Recently several libraries have dropped their gateway status. Gateway providers and the depository community need clarification regarding the continuing role and purpose of gateways.

Response: GPO staff facilitated a discussion on the role and goals of the GPO Access Gateways initiative at the October 1997 Council meeting. An assumption of that discussion was that the Gateways initiative began with specific objectives at the time of GPO Access as a fee-based service, and that when those objectives were substantially achieved (when GPO Access was made free) no new benchmarks were put in place for Gateways.

Four goals for the Gateways initiative were defined or reaffirmed at the 1997 session:

• The Gateways initiative should promote and enable low-end access to GPO Access through dial-up and Telnet connections.

• The Gateways initiative should provide an environment for high quality service, innovation and experimentation.

• WWW-based Gateways should provide significant locally tailored instructional, navigational, or interpretive content.

• The Gateways initiative should support stability and consistency for end users.

Since that time, no further action has occurred except to address concerns raised at the meeting. Occasionally GPO has received a request to grant new Gateways status, and several libraries have dropped out.

In reviewing these four goals, the one most specific to Gateways is the issue of low-end, dial-up users. Based on anecdotal observations of the operations of the SWAIS interface, it appears that users not connecting to GPO Access through a graphical user interface and the World Wide Web are a rapidly diminishing population. The second and third goals are addressed either within the context of general depository operations or by continuing GPO efforts to refine the GPO Access organization and interface.

GPO acknowledges and appreciates the successes of the Gateways initiative in opening no-fee access to Government information, and the effort of many depository librarians and administrators, systems staff, and others in creating those successes. However, GPO also recognizes that the Gateways initiative has served its purpose and is no longer a program with a clear mission or need. Thus, GPO will end formal support of the Gateways initiative as of September 30, 2000. The SWAIS interface will continue to be operated by GPO, and no links will be disabled, so current Gateways will be able to continue to operate if they so choose. In the future such activities will be acknowledged as outreach activities within normal depository operations, rather than as part of the separate Gateways program effort.

Council recommends that GPO establish direct, periodic (minimally on an annual basis), issue-oriented communications to directors of depository libraries. Copies of the communications should be supplied in advance to depository librarians.

Rationale: Council recognizes the need for direct communication from GPO to directors at Depository Libraries in order to reinforce the importance of the program, to inform directors of current issues facing depositories, and to form a basis of discussion between depository librarians and their administrators. The proposed communications would assist in building awareness and support at higher levels. The communications might be patterned on the "Briefings for Academic Officers" that is an adjunct piece to Journal of Academic Libraries.

Response: GPO will initiate issue-oriented communications with the directors of Federal depository libraries when necessary to advise the directors about significant program activities or changes. Examples of such issues include changes in FDLP public service requirements, or situations that may have library budget implications, such as updates to the recommended minimum technical specifications for public access computer workstations. Communication with directors is a shared responsibility, and GPO encourages depository staff to actively engage their directors in ongoing communications about the FDLP, for example by sharing issues of Administrative Notes that include important statements from the Public Printer or the Superintendent of Documents.

Council is pleased at the efforts by GPO to develop a digital storage facility to provide permanent public access to its electronic resource collection. Council urges GPO to develop a plan for the archive and to move its current state from test bed to a publicly accessible electronic repository.

Rationale: Council understands that the online facility has two years storage capacity. Council urges GPO to develop strategies to manage material which may be transferred to offline on-demand storage and update Council at the next meeting.

Response: GPO is pleased to report that the archive component of the FDLP Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) is in operation. Issues of two publications in the FDLP/EC recently became unavailable from their agency source and users are being redirected, via the PURL, to archived copies on GPO servers. Except for the intermediary access screen that explains the status of the publication and the date of its capture, the process is seamless and invisible to the user.

Electronic publications acquired for the FDLP/EC in online form only (with no tangible equivalent in the FDLP) are being captured, documented, and stored. GPO staff are still learning to effectively manage a multiplicity of file types, formats, and web design issues, but are actively transferring earlier experimental captures to the archive server, and are adding newly acquired publications regularly.

Planning for the archive is taking place within the larger context of the electronic collection plan. Over the coming months the Electronic Collection Manager, the Electronic Collection Team, and other key contributors will begin to more fully flesh out the outlines of the plan with policies and procedures based on our experience to date. In terms of infrastructure, we are very fortunate that the archive utilizes servers dedicated solely to it, and therefore planning for additional capacity and operational improvements will be based solely on FDLP utilization and concerns.

Council recommends that GPO verify the presence of silver halide masters for microfiche distributed through the FDLP and stored at NARA and/or LC and to identify cost effective procedures for replacement copies of aging microfiche in our collections, and inform the library community of these procedures.

Rationale: Council assumes that the depository program will still have access to copies made from the silver halide master. Since many of our microfiche are approaching 25 years old, we believe that setting a procedure now for libraries to follow for getting replacement copies would be wise planning.

Response: The conversion of depository publications from paper to microfiche format results in three categories of microfiche:

• First generation silver halide master copies. These are sent to NARA every four years according to an established records disposition schedule.

• Second generation silver reproducible microfiche. Reprints for depository claims are made from these copies until the material is transferred every two years to the Library of Congress.

• Diazo copies sent to the Federal depository libraries.

In 1989, the Library of Congress (LC) and GPO entered into an interagency agreement (IA), which provided for the transfer of the second generation silver reproducible depository microfiche to LC. Under this agreement, LC agreed to house the microfiche in its permanent collection. This material is now available in LC’s Serials and Government Publications Division.

According to the IA, "The Library of Congress can use this collection to better serve the information needs of the United States Congress and its other users, to fulfill claims from foreign libraries under the International Exchange Program, and has the facilities to reproduce microfiche and paper blowbacks for the public."

Every two years GPO sends the second generation silvers to LC. Under the IA, LC assumed responsibility for all interfiling of microfiche into Superintendent of Documents classification number order at its site. LC also agreed to assume sole responsibility for on-demand sales of microfiche and/or paper blowbacks to the public. GPO agreed to direct all inquiries to LC for microfiche copies for material already transferred to LC. If GPO needs a temporary loan of some of this microfiche material, LC loans the material to GPO on a short-term basis.

Libraries may obtain replacement copies of individual titles from LC. The standard fees for duplication are $4.00 per microfiche for silver and $1.75 per microfiche for diazo. There is a minimum charge of $10.00 per order. If a cost estimate is required, there is a $10.00 prepayment. This amount will be applied to duplication costs if an order is placed. Shipping and handling charges are extra.

As covered in the response to Recommendation 2, Disposition of Depository Materials to NARA, LPS transfers cataloged copies of microfiche publications to NARA in four-year blocks. However, LPS recommends contacting LC for replacement copies of FDLP microfiche.

LPS does not believe it is in the best interests of the FDLP to expend funds from the limited appropriations budget for replacement copies of the diazo microfiche material. LPS does not systematically expend funds for replacement of aging tangible products in any other format. If the decision were made to replace this material, there would have to be a corresponding decrease in other products and services to offset the costs involved in replacing this material.

Council recommends that GPO continue to assume a leadership role in bringing together key government officials and other appropriate representatives to hold collaborative discussions regarding the permanent public access of electronic Government information.

Rationale: The current federal government information landscape has become increasingly fragmented as individual federal agencies publish directly to the Web in lieu of using traditional channels for printing, dissemination, and records disposition. Though agencies publishing directly to the Web often meet immediate missions to create and distribute information, they too often ignore issues of permanent public access and preservation, functions traditionally carried out through the FDLP and NARA. High level discussions among major federal and private stakeholders, including GPO, NARA, the national libraries, and the archivist and library communities, will help clarify roles and focus issue oriented discussions regarding electronic information resources.

Response: GPO continues to organize and host a series of meetings regarding permanent public access to electronic Government information. These meetings bring together key Government officials and other stakeholders representing agencies and organizations active in the permament public access arena, including NARA, the Library of Congress, the National Libraries of Agriculture, Medicine, and Education, the Department of Energy’s Office of Scientific and Technical Information, the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, the Council on Libraries and Information Resources, the Office of Management and Budget, and staff from key Congressional committees. The sessions, now held on a quarterly basis, emphasize top level discussions and cross-cutting awareness of permanent public access initiatives in various Government and related settings. The most recent meeting, held March 31, 2000, featured presentations from GPO on the FDLP Electronic Collection archive and from NARA on the research initiatives concerning large groups of electronic records. The group also previewed the prototype of new permanent public access forum web site, located at http://www.ppa.gpo.gov.

Council recommends that GPO conduct a comprehensive review of online locator and finding aid tools to evaluate the need, redundancy, and organization of current tools. The report should also address possible development of new tools. The review process will require Council and depository library input as well as an analysis of available statistics. The Council requests a report prior to the spring meeting.

Rationale: Council is concerned that the current online tools may be redundant with other online tools and may not be as effective or necessary as when they were first developed. Council believes that an analysis of usage from the Biennial Survey and Web statistics will assist GPO in its review of these tools. The report will assist GPO and Council in deciding the future of GPO locator tools.

Response: GPO has conducted a comprehensive review of online cataloging and locator services, and copies of the resulting report were provided to Council in March. A primary purpose of this review is to evaluate the need, usability, and organization of current tools. In essence, the review concluded that GPO’s suite of cataloging and locator services needs to be refined rather than replaced. To this end, GPO has initiated several actions to improve these services, and has proposed other related changes for Council’s consideration. In conducting this review GPO also found that issues relevant to the online cataloging and locator services led to a consideration of changes in the print and CD-ROM publications based on GPO cataloging. Therefore, the report includes two proposals concerning the future directions for the Monthly Catalog-based tangible output products.

Council is encouraged by the modifications that GPO is making in the self-study schedule. Council recommends that GPO investigate methods for providing timelier acknowledgment of the submission of self-studies, and information for depositories on the status of self-studies and inspections.

Rationale: Depository libraries take the self-study process seriously, and devote large amounts of time to the preparation of their reports. Libraries now receive no acknowledgment that their self-studies have been received. A brief acknowledgment, even by e-mail, would assure depositories that their studies were in the process, and would be a courtesy much appreciated by the libraries. The time delay between self-study submission and evaluation reports would be more acceptable to libraries if some information on progress could be made available. Efficient ways of accomplishing this could be regular communication with Regionals, and/or a web page with general information on the schedules of the inspection team.

Response: Beginning with the batch of self-studies due in May 2000, Depository Services will notify each depository by e-mail of its receipt at LPS. Depository Services will continue to notify the regionals of any self-studies not received at LPS by the deadline. Subsequently the regionals can remind the depository under their purview to complete the self-study. LPS is working with the Library of Michigan on a partnership for "regional pages" including a section on inspections and self-studies.