F e d e r a l    D e p o s i t o r y    L i b r a r y    P r o g r a m

Superintendent of Documents Update
Remarks by Francis J. Buckley, Jr.
Superintendent of Documents

Good morning. When I first appeared before you last year during the ALA Midwinter meeting in New Orleans in my new role as Superintendent of Documents, I said that I was pleased Mr. DiMario, the Public Printer, had asked me to be a spokesperson for comprehensive, equitable public access to Government information--something I have advocated throughout my library career. In the 14 months since my appointment as Superintendent of Documents, I have taken that charge to heart. I have spoken to library and information-related conferences, library science classes, and various professional association meetings. My most recent trip was to Tokyo to address a Symposium at the National Diet Library about our programs for the dissemination of Government information. It was a very interesting experience for cross-cultural exchange of information and ideas.

In addition to this travel, I am attempting to work closely with you in the depository community, to ensure that the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) will be strong and viable into the next century, which is quickly approaching. To manage the program we appointed Gil Baldwin, whom many of you know, Director of Library Programs Service (LPS) this past November. Gil has been with GPO for over 25 years. I know that he doesn抰 always like to be reminded of that number. Does a quarter century sound any better? However it is phrased, Gil has done much during his years at GPO. He started out indexing the Congressional Record and then moved to LPS as a cataloger. He held a number of other staff and management positions within LPS, including Cataloging Branch Chief and since 1994 until his recent appointment, he served as Chief of the LPS Library Division.

He was the principal author of the Strategic Plan portion of GPO抯 1996 Study that outlined the transition to a more electronic FDLP. Most recently he has been concentrating his efforts on permanent access issues. I know you share my sentiments in wishing Gil well in this new phase of his GPO life.

Whether we look at this past fiscal year (which ended on September 30) or calendar year 1998, I can tell you that overall it was a good year for the depository program.

In FY �, we provided 15.2 million copies of more than 40,000 tangible products (print, microfiche, and CD-ROMs) to depository libraries. At the end of calendar year �, we provided online access through GPO Access to more than 85,000 titles directly on GPO servers and we pointed to more than 47,000 titles on agency Web sites, making a total of over 133,000 publications available.

And one more statistic to share with you. As of this past Monday, January 25, 1999, there were 1,352 depository libraries in the program.

A major initiative in the FDLP has been the development of a policy and planning document, Managing the FDLP Electronic Collection, to chart our course in the transition to a more electronic depository library program. You抣l be hearing more about our electronic collection plan from Gil, who follows me, and tomorrow during the joint meeting of the GODORT Cataloging Committee and Federal Documents Task Force. We want to distribute it widely. In December the plan was shared with more than 130 individuals in the library/information community, including all members of the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer, the Inter-Association Working Group, staff and elected representatives of the major library and information associations, faculty at a number of graduate schools for library and information science, and a wide array of Federal agency officials. We have received some feedback about the report and would welcome more.

We continue to be concerned about the fugitive documents problem. But, with your help, we are making inroads. The Depository Administration Branch (DAB) has been very successful in obtaining fugitive documents from a number of Executive Branch agencies, including the Civil Rights Commission, the Department of Agriculture, and Health and Human Services. Your inquiries have helped LPS staff to investigate and then acquire fugitive documents for the FDLP.

We are pleased with the continued success and popularity of GPO Access. Between October 1997 and September 1998, searches on GPO Access increased by 21%, while retrievals increased by 85%. Currently, the Web site is averaging close to 5 million searches and 10 to 15 million retrievals per month. TC Evans will be reporting on GPO Access developments tomorrow.

I also want to mention that we are continuing to work on a proposal to create a GPO Learning Center. We would like to establish a facility to demonstrate GPO Access and train librarians on using it.

In FY �, the Sales Program handled more than 653,000 orders and sold over 11 million copies of publications. Financially it appears that our expenses exceeded revenues, but final year-end adjustments are still being made, so I do not have specific figures. We experienced declining sales volumes, changes in buying patterns, reduced number of titles to sell and unanticipated charges for special management and financial audits and revised depreciation expenses.

The inventory of the Document Sales Program consists of over 12,000 products offered in a variety of formats such as CD-ROM (over 100 titles), magnetic tapes, microfiche, and videos. However, the bulk of the inventory remains ink on paper, although we have been seeing a gradual decline in traditional printed products as more Federal agencies place their products on their Web sites or publish in other electronic formats. Nonetheless, GPO staff managed nearly 5.6 million copies of Government information products at a retail value of approximately $66.4 million in our warehouse in Laurel, Maryland, 24 GPO bookstores, the distribution center in Pueblo, Colorado, and some dozen Consigned Sales Agents from other Federal agencies.

To meet the need to retain certain U.S. Government publications for long-term availability in the GPO Sales Program, I have appointed a committee, chaired by former Depository Library Council member Peggy Walker, members of the depository community and staff from LPS and GPO Sales to help identify appropriate titles and develop guidelines for the program. An initial group of titles that will not go out of print has been identified. We are developing a policy statement on the "Retention of Government Information Products of Historical Significance in the Sales Collection." For the purpose of such a policy, a Government information product of historical significance is one that documents or reflects major historical initiatives or activities of lasting importance carried out by the Federal Government, its branches, or its agencies or is one of permanent reference value. This may include historical documents or works of historical scholarship, legal and regulatory decisions, major statistical compilations, and official reports of significant events or occurrences. Government information products retained under this policy will meet both current and future needs of customers who wish to purchase their own copies of such products at a reasonable price. Products listed as historically significant will be reviewed periodically to verify the need for continued retention as sales items.

I am pleased to report that we are more "aggressive" about getting items into our Sales Program; by fashioning new arrangements and examining different ways of doing business with other groups, both inside and outside of Government. As an example, we have an agreement with the National Technical Information Service to purchase copies of the Federal Tax Products IRS CD-ROM for the GPO Sales Program. GPO staff has worked with the Central Intelligence Agency to ensure that its World Factbook is printed and included in our Sales Program. We have reprinted the public domain portions of the North American Industrial Classification System. And we have worked with agencies to publish O*NET and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). We buy copies of Environmental Health Perspectives from the contractor for Sales.

I would like to now mention a topic that has been brought before you a number of times in the past few years--the implementation of the Integrated Processing System (IPS) in the Sales Program. As we were preparing for this conference, the vendor (Northrup Grumman) provided us with their new proposed schedule which called for the critical functions of the system to be completed next week. All of the software has been delivered and all the modifications we have contracted for have been made. Now various bugs and glitches are being fixed. We expect to undertake a complete test of the critical functions of the system in February. The "go live" date would then occur after procedures and training are completed, probably mid- to late May.

The January 11 issue of Federal Computer Week contained its annual "what抯 out, what抯 in" list. For 1999, it notes that Y2K deadlines are out. What抯 in? Well, December 31, 1999. Also on the "Out and In" list is that "dire predictions of Y2K calamity" are out. That comforted me until I saw what was in: "the end of the world." Well, our predictions are not dire and we do not foresee the end of the world for the SuDocs programs. I am pleased to note that in 1998, we analyzed all of the legacy mainframe applications and local personal computer (PC) applications to determine what steps would be necessary to ensure that the various systems and services are Y2K compliant. Much work on the various systems has been completed, including the modifications needed to ensure that the Shipping List application was ready for Y2K.

The software for ACSIS, the Acquisition, Classification and Shipping Information System, has been Year 2000 tested and implemented. Twenty-five percent of the DDIS (Depository Distribution Information System) software still needs to be renovated, tested and implemented before it will be Year 2000 compliant.

Overall, there are some 41 PCs in LPS that need to be replaced to be ready for Y2K. The process of replacing the computers is underway and will be completed well in advance of the year 2000. All of the Microsoft Office 97 software on the Windows NT network is Y2K compliant.

We are preparing a transmission to the Joint Committee on Printing to request funding to upgrade the lighted bin system to be Y2K compliant.

I also wanted to mention that IPS has been certified by the vendor, Northrup Grumman, to be Y2K compliant.

At GPO we all recognize and appreciate the partnership we have with libraries in the provision of access to Government information. We have a number of staff here to report on developments in our programs and to listen to your ideas and concerns.

Library Programs Service Update
Remarks by Gil Baldwin
Director, Library Programs Service

Good morning, everyone! I抦 pleased to appear before you today in my new role as Director of the Library Programs Service (LPS) and I want thank Mr. DiMario and Mr. Buckley for giving me this responsibility. Many of you know that I抳e been part of LPS for many years--not quite long enough to have experienced the year 1900 problem, but at least long enough that print to electronic is not my first format transition. This is an exciting time to be part of the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), as we work through the changes that will carry the program forward. This morning I want to highlight several developments in LPS, and to lay some groundwork for topics that will be covered in the combined Federal Documents and Cataloging Committee session tomorrow. I will cover three very inter-related aspects of building the FDLP Electronic Collection: incorporating archiving into our processing routines; migrating from print media to electronic products; and a new model for partnerships.

As many of you know, we have developed and published a policy defining GPO's management of the electronic Government information products made available through the FDLP. This policy is contained in our paper called Managing the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document, also known as the Plan, or sometimes as the little red book. I had a few copies available at the San Diego fall Council meeting, but since then we抳e published it and distributed copies not only to every depository but also to an extensive list of Program stakeholders and interested parties. Naturally, it抯 on the Web, too, and the URL is in our handouts.

I can抰 stress enough how important it is for us and the Program to have gone through this process. The Plan is the framework upon which we are beginning the steps to build and manage the FDLP Electronic Collection in a real-time working environment.

Now LPS is engaged in evaluating how some of our earlier efforts to incorporate electronic Federal Government information products into the FDLP stack up against the Plan. We are looking for opportunities to expand the Collection and integrate functional activities and services. Most especially we are test-driving methods of archiving agency information products to make good on the commitment to permanent public access. This fall, we reviewed our family of cataloging and locator services, initially with an eye toward identifying and reducing possible areas of overlap. This process included a variety of people from LPS, joined by staff from the Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services (EIDS). It was a very constructive exercise, and we are beginning to apply the policies laid out in the Collection Plan to our production environment. Judy Andrews from James Madison University, who is one of our Electronic Transition Staff, and Laurie Beyer Hall of LPS, have been leading this effort. Laurie will be part of the program tomorrow morning, and she will show you in some detail how we envision our "life-cycle" processing.

In the Plan, the FDLP Electronic Collection is described as having four components. As we developed the Plan, several of us felt that the most challenging area of the Collection is what we called Category 3. Not to be confused with Area 51, Category 3 includes in the Collection any electronic resource that we bring under some type of bibliographic control, whether through full cataloging or one of the locator services. We were concerned that expanding the scope of the Collection in this fashion, without having some degree of control over the electronic products themselves, could lead to difficulties in providing permanent public access to those products. The thrust of our internal discussions was how to "elevate" Category 3 products into Categories 1 or 2, which include products either under the direct control of GPO or one of our program partners. Now we抮e exploring ways to do that, by incorporating data archiving into our processing workflow. Initially we are testing archiving on a GPO server, but we are looking toward the day when FDLP electronic products will also be routinely archived at partner sites.

The third leg of the implementation triangle is the emerging new model for partnerships, one in which GPO takes a much more active role. To date our content partnerships either involve inactive agencies, or they follow the Department of State--University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) model. In the State/UIC partnership it抯 the agency and the University which are the most active partners, while GPO抯 role is to act as a guarantor, a safety net for the content in case one of the primary partners backs out. As some of you know, we have experienced problems in identifying other agencies that are interested in becoming active partners in the State/UIC mold, probably because it calls for such proactive participation from the agency. We are now looking for partnership opportunities that emphasize an active role for GPO and a depository institution, and can accommodate a less active role on the part of the agency, beyond the initial creation of the information product.

What I would envision is a depository library identifying a body of Government information that fits that library抯 collection development policy, possibly along subject lines. The library or its parent institution would agree to commit server space and associated resources to archive products from one or more agencies that fit this partnership profile. GPO would locate, evaluate, and apply bibliographic control to appropriate electronic products. We would advise the publishing agency that their product is being incorporated into the FDLP Electronic Collection, and establish a channel for the agency to notify us about significant changes in the product or its location. Then we would archive the electronic product, either at the partner site or on a GPO server. George Barnum of our Electronic Transition Staff has been working on a model agreement along these lines and we hope to have something to test soon.

A few weeks ago, George and I did our Electronic Collection presentation for the Federal Publishers� Committee and we抳e gotten a couple of interesting leads out of that. One of these is with NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and they抳e got some really interesting electronic products that they are interested in finding an archiving partner for. These are great products, in subject areas like meteorology, ecosystem management, oceanography, marine mammals, and global change. So any of you who might be interested in partnering with LPS and NOAA to provide permanent access for this kind of information, please let us know.

I want to thank George and Judy for their efforts on our Electronic Transition Staff and their contributions to LPS. Many of their efforts these past few months reflect LPS' initial realization of the policies and plans for the FDLP Electronic Collection. We are now at the point when it抯 time to get our hands dirty and make permanent access happen. With plans in hand, we抮e taking the real world steps of the electronic transition. As in any transition period, our work is divided between maintaining and enhancing the traditional functions that relate to the management of tangible Federal Government information products, and developmental activities. But for the moment we抮e out of the study phase and onto making permanent access work in a production environment.

I抎 like to put in a plug here for joining our Electronic Transition Staff for the 1999-2000 "term." Once again, we抮e looking for a couple of people who would like to spend a year in GPO helping us with the behind-the-scenes work of the electronic transition. You may have seen my announcement on GOVDOC-L last week, and there抯 a handout here about the opportunity. So don抰 be shy � come up and make yourself known.

Two years ago we proposed phasing out certain FDLP titles which were distributed in microfiche when an official, reliable electronic version was available from the agency. Subsequent discussion revealed that the library community felt our proposal was premature. The principal reason for concern was our inability to guarantee permanent access to the electronic versions.

Now that we are moving toward data archiving as part of our workflow, we feel that we are in a position to allay those permanent access issues. This is another direct result of implementing the FDLP Electronic Collection Plan. Robin Haun-Mohamed, Chief of our Depository Administration Branch, will cover this in more detail tomorrow, including the criteria we have identified for carrying out these product migrations. I want to stress this is not product conversion--we are not taking a print product and using technology to produce an electronic version. These are cases in which there are official, essentially equivalent, versions in both print and electronic media, and we are selecting a version for the FDLP. These decisions are based on expected usage, reliability, completeness, and so on, but our decisions must take into account the expectation of the Congress that this program will become increasingly electronic in nature. But while changing the FDLP dissemination format for existing products is one issue, we also find products new to the FDLP, that are available both from the agency Web site and in print. In these cases, we will generally bring the electronic version into the program, but we are not attempting to secure the print version unless it is of extraordinary value.

Let me turn now to the 1999 Biennial Survey, which will take place this fall. I appreciate all of the effort and interest of the Depository Library Council抯 Statistical Measurement Committee (SMC) in the Biennial Survey. With their assistance, we believe we have developed a survey that meets the needs of LPS and will be beneficial to the depository community as well. Following up on the discussions that took place at the San Diego Council meeting, LPS prepared a draft survey that is nearly complete. We are in the late stages of completing the Survey design and we will circulate a draft to the depository library community this spring, in order to provide you with sufficient advance notice about the Biennial Survey.

The purpose of the Biennial Survey is to report on the conditions in the depository libraries. The draft survey is based on the questions asked during an on-site inspection and questions posed to depositories in the self-study evaluation process. We felt that using these tools as the basis for the survey is the best and most consistent way to evaluate the condition of depository libraries. Some questions are also asked to provide feedback to inspectors so they may better fulfill their advisory role with depository librarians and library directors. The new Biennial Survey will:

• Enhance our ability to knowledgeably manage the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP);
• Assist us in carrying out our consultant role with depository librarians and administrators;
• Allow GPO to report to Congress on the state of the FDLP; and
• Reduce the reporting burden on individual depository librarians in their variety of institutional settings.

While not all of the questions in the draft discussed in San Diego were incorporated, we believe that the intended results of those questions can be derived from this revised instrument. Most importantly, this survey is answerable by all types of depository libraries with any type of organizational configuration.

Some problems and possible negative ramifications for individual depositories were recognized in responding to the cost-related questions. While we agree that those questions should be included in the Survey, LPS has placed them in an optional section, to be completed at the library抯 discretion. This approach should provide LPS with data on the financial contributions to the FDLP made by individual depositories, but it will not force any library to divulge financial information that the library feels may jeopardize its continued participation in the FDLP.

Last fall there was considerable discussion on access issues, particularly with Internet use policies and how local library policies relate to the free access requirements of the FDLP. In San Diego we presented draft FDLP Internet Use Policy Guidelines. The draft has been reviewed by Depository Library Council and our General Counsel, and I抦 please to announce that these Guidelines have just been published in the January 15 issue of Administrative Notes, and are included in our handout package. The new Internet Use Policy Guidelines build upon the Depository Library Public Service Guidelines for Government Information in Electronic Formats, published last September, and the 1998 Recommended Specifications for Public Access Work Stations in Federal Depository Libraries, published last June.

In general, our position is that all depository libraries must offer the general public free access to online Federal Government information provided through the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). This follows the same principle of free access that governs the use of traditional depository materials, as provided in Section 1911 of Title 44, United States Code.

Depository libraries should have a written access policy that addresses the issues regarding obtaining FDLP information on the Internet. One thing articulated in these new Guidelines is that all depository libraries are expected to provide access to the products in the FDLP Electronic Collection. This of course includes everything on GPO Access.

Access to online Federal Government information provided through the FDLP must be available to any library user free of fees or other restrictions, such as age, residency status, or filtering software. This is the same principle of free access that governs the use of traditional depository materials. I hope that this policy statement will be helpful to you in working through access issues in your local setting.

Many Improvements Made to GPO Access; More to Come
Remarks by T.C. Evans
Assistant Director, Office of Electronic Information Dissemination

It is a pleasure to have another opportunity to update the library community on the current and future state of GPO Access. Since we last met, a tremendous amount of GPO resources have been devoted to improving the products and services of GPO Access. While I am confident that you will agree that the results represent a move in the right direction, I am also afraid that you will agree that there is much to be done.

All of the hardworking individuals at GPO who make GPO Access a reality deserve a word of public thanks, but so do you. The time and effort put in by documents librarians to provide us with the essential feedback necessary to produce a more useful service is deeply appreciated.

These efforts are paying off both in terms of utility to our users and attention for the site. GPO Access products and services have continued to grow and an increasing number of authoritative sites are linking to them. Just this past week, the Dow Jones Business Directory site included a review of our congressional applications stating: "This straightforward site will be invaluable for librarians, students, journalists and others who want to know who is in Congress and what transpired."

There are now more than 1,000 official Government databases available on GPO Access. These databases contain almost 100 gigabytes of data and the total is growing daily. In addition, thousands of other Government information products are accessible through GPO Access. In fact, the most recent count showed that over 135,000 electronic titles are available through the FDLP Electronic Collection. These titles include all of the products and services available on and linked to from GPO Access.

This total is continuing evidence of the transition to a more electronic FDLP. The number of electronic titles has grown by more than 11,000 in the first quarter of fiscal 1999 and will continue to expand as more content is added to our servers, additional partnerships are achieved, and more titles on other sites are bibliographically controlled and linked from our site.

GPO Access usage continues to be high, even though we are still experiencing slow system performance and it has been a traditionally slow time of year. While recent system changes have prevented us temporarily from capturing exact numbers, we can confidently estimate using the data available. Over 250 million documents have been downloaded from GPO Access since it began operation in 1994. With an estimated 45 million documents downloaded in the first three months of fiscal 1999, approximately 180 million documents should be downloaded this fiscal year.

System performance has not yet reached desired levels because the implementation of our server controller array has proven more difficult and time-consuming than anticipated. The size and complexity of the GPO Access system presents some difficult challenges to such an implementation, but our Production department is working hard to get the job done while still providing access to the systems resources. It would be difficult to give you an exact date for completion of this effort, but I can assure you that it is receiving the highest possible priority.

There are a number of recent changes to GPO Access that should be noted. The most important are:

• An important new feature has been added to our Congressional Record Index (CRI) application. With this feature you can use the available hyperlinks to jump directly to the appropriate pages in the Congressional Record instead of having to perform a search. Initial user response has been quite favorable, but we would like to get additional feedback.

• There is a new electronic replacement for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. It is known as O*NET. Working in partnership with O*NET's publishers, the Department of Labor抯 Employment and Training Administration, the Superintendent of Documents is now distributing the full range of O*NET 98 products. The principal product is the CD-ROM that includes the full range of O*NET products. The full suite of O*NET products is also available on GPO Access. Additionally, the O*NET Viewer and Database are available individually on diskette. The User's Guide and Data Dictionary are available in print. Labor has decided not to produce a printed version of O*NET, which was planned and developed as an interactive database rather than a text file.

• Based on a suggestion from some of our Council members (Dr. Fred Wood and Mary Alice Baish), links to official Congressional Committee Web sites have been added to our congressional pages.

• A prototype of an interactive GPO Access training CD-ROM has been developed. I encourage you to visit the GPO Booth at the Convention Center (Booth # 2153) and take the time to field test this prototype and give us your feedback. The evaluation process will take about a half-hour, so you can sign up for a time most convenient to you, and you will receive a GPO Access Field Tester Certificate after giving us your review.

• A new and improved list of our available CD-ROM products has been created and copies are available at the GPO booth (Booth # 2153).

• New pages were recently made available pulling together links to all of the materials from the House and Senate related to the impeachment process.

• Daily Sales Product Catalog text files and monthly Monthly Catalog text files are now available on the Federal Bulletin Board.

As always, work is under way to add more content to GPO Access and to refine access to the materials already provided. Some key examples of current efforts are:

• Export Administration Regulations from the Department of Commerce抯 Bureau of Export Administration is being added to GPO Access. This new availability will take two forms. A browse feature has been released that will enable users to freely download any section in ASCII, PDF, or WordPerfect form. A searchable database will soon follow.

• Based on valuable feedback received through focus groups, suggestions, and personal contacts, the GPO Access Web Committee is hard at work on a new GPO Access home page. This will include some eagerly awaited features such as a site search mechanism, quick jumps to key products, and links to new pages created to reflect products available on GPO Access grouped into intuitive categories.

• A new GPO Access user survey is being prepared and details on participation will be released through common channels in the near future.

• Software has been successfully tested that will provide an encrypted secure environment to enter payment information through GPO Access when purchasing sales products. This new enhancement will be released as soon as the required permissions have been received.

• A new CIA World Factbook CD-ROM will be released in late February.

• A new Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission CD-ROM containing their decisions is being prepared. It will be released as a quarterly subscription.

• And last, but not least, the Budget will be released tomorrow morning in print and on GPO Access. The CD-ROM version and the print version of the Economic Report of the President will be released on February 4, 1999.

Once again, I urge you to stop by Booth 2153 and see the changes in GPO Access offerings. We will be happy to demonstrate any part of GPO Access. We can also provide you with promotional materials on what is available in the Sales Program, and as an added bonus, LPS personnel will be available to answer questions related to the Federal Depository Library Program.

LPS Cataloging Policies for Internet Resources: A Review
Remarks by Thomas A. Downing

Before the Federal Documents Task Force and
Cataloging Committee, Government Documents Round Table
American Library Association
Philadelphia, PA
January 31, 1999

Good morning. It is a pleasure to be with you to provide a review of our Internet-related cataloging policies and a description of how they have evolved. After my presentation, Laurie Hall, Program Analyst, Library Programs Service (LPS) will provide you with a summary of recent efforts by LPS staff to refine services and establish procedures within the context of developing the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) Electronic Collection.

Our initial effort to provide access to Internet-related works published by U.S. Government agencies was to record URL-related data in the 530 note field of serial records. Approximately four years ago, this effort consisted of transcribing URL data from the pages of paper editions of serials to the 530 note field. During this early period, people who were sufficiently savvy could type this address in a browser to gain access to works that, unfortunately, were often inconsistent with what the records represented.

This early form of indirect access could take users to advertisements for sales publications or to other inappropriate types of information unrelated to our records. Increasingly, as time passed and as the practices of publishers evolved, these URLs led to more relevant resources such as a specific issue of a serial or a clickable index or search window that led to a run of issues.

Faced with an increasing number of works in paper, both serials and monographs, that contained URL data that reflected evolving practices of publishers, we began looking at options for providing access to such works. During a Depository Library Council meeting held in Washington, DC in April, 1996, we presented a proposal for providing access to Internet-related works. We proposed creating very brief records that consisted of a title, series (if available), SuDocs class number, and hot-linked URLs.

Our proposal was intended to provide people with low-cost access as an alternative to more expensive AACR2 cataloging. Our concerns for low-cost access were based upon the then all-too-frequent practice among agency webmasters of removing works from agency servers very soon after posting. We reasoned that the costs of cataloging exceeded the benefits of such short-term access.

People responded to this proposal by expressing the view that AACR2 cataloging for such works was essential and should take precedence over cost-related concerns. It appears that this advice was based upon an underlying principle that access to the many important Internet-related works should be available in the context of library online public access catalogs, or OPACs, in preference to specialized resources that are maintained independently as "stand alone" applications. Understandably, we appreciated this advice, respected these perspectives and continued to provide an indirect form of electronic access to Internet-related works via URL information in the 530 note field of our Monthly Catalog records.

The initiative to provide short form electronic access was set aside in favor of a traditional approach. Our efforts to develop "non-traditional" approaches to providing access to Internet resources have resulted in the suite of Pathway Services, which provide browseable access and GILS (Global Information Locator Service) access.

Fortunately, at approximately the same time that we affirmed our initial approach to providing Internet-related information in Monthly Catalog records, members of CONSER (Cooperative Online Serials) and OCLC personnel were developing policies and practices that provided a national level context for Internet-related cataloging initiatives. For their part, CONSER members advocated the use of a "single record" approach as an option to creating separate records for Internet resources. As members of CONSER, we were authorized to use a single record option for providing access to works that had been published in paper, microfiche, and other physical formats.

Use of a single record for Internet purposes was consistent with our well-established policy of using a record for a work in paper to also represent microfiche reproductions. In effect, LPS does not catalog most FDLP Internet works (in the sense of creating unique separate records for them) but makes them accessible via the recording of hot-linked PURLs/URLs in the 856 field of records that represent works in physical formats.

CONSER抯 "single record" option which allows CONSER institutions to record URL/PURL data in records for physical formats or, conversely, to use a record for an Internet-related work for representing physical forms of such a work, helps to promote access without requiring institutions to produce separate records. From my perspective, the lower costs of this approach and the value this approach has for eliminating the need to produce separate records for works in different formats of the same title are sufficient reasons to follow this policy.

A second contribution of CONSER was to advocate the use of the 856 field of OCLC records to provide direct access to electronic works. The hot-linked 856 field saves users the trouble of producing a printout or copying an address and then typing an address into a browser. The American Library Association (ALA) Government Documents Round Table (GODORT) Cataloging Committee approved use of these policies has done much to support our Internet-related cataloging operations.

Although useful, our application of CONSER policies alone are insufficient to provide cost-effective electronic access to Internet-related works. OCLC抯 freely available PURLs, (Persistent Uniform Resource Locators) software, which was developed several years ago, provides institutions with a seamless redirect function in which users click on a PURL in the 856 field of a bibliographic record and are routed through a server which connects the PURL to the most active URL at a Web site or archive. PURLs servers are easier to maintain than frequently changing URLs in bibliographic records.

More importantly, our efforts to maintain electronic access through the use of PURLs means that librarians will not need to change URL addresses in GPO-produced records within their local OPACs. OPAC users are directed to our PURL server which then re-directs users to, in most instances, valid URLs. PURLs were designed specifically for cataloging operations and provide institutions with an environment that supports efforts to maintain electronic access.

Recognizing that LPS PURLs applications are on a very large scale (currently more than 2,000 PURLs), OCLC worked with LPS personnel to upgrade its PURLs software. Machine-generated assignment of PURLs and improved reports modules have made it possible for LPS staff to use PURLs as an important tool that supports efforts to provide electronic access to an increasing number of Internet-related works.

As you can appreciate, maintaining accurate URL information in PURLs records is quite a task. PURLs are not perfect and PURLs are not magic. Our maintenance of PURLs now requires the assistance of approximately two full time equivalent LPS personnel. Our personnel are engaged with several important tasks that include choosing the best available URL to a resource for initial association with a PURL, reviewing exceptions reports that indicate broken links, attempting to locate new URLs for resources with broken links, and assuring that the re-connected resource represents an official version of what had initially been identified.

As can be seen, maintaining PURLs requires considerable human intervention and professional judgement. In the future, it is possible that additional improvements to PURLs software may be made or that other successor software will provide improved support for access.

Our PURLs applications currently support electronic access to Internet-related works via both Browse Electronic Title (BET) entries and Monthly Catalog records. In a sense, BET entries, which are not integrated within OPACs, represent what had been our initial proposal for short-form records for Internet-related titles. Monthly Catalog records at the GPO Web site provide users with OPAC-based electronic access for many Internet-related works and, through the locate function, the shelf locations for thousands of physical form works that have been cataloged and distributed.

Now I would like to provide a summary of Internet-related cataloging policies and operations.

When electronic works have been cataloged as physical forms (paper, microfiche, CD-ROMs, etc.) prior to becoming available electronically, we upgrade many existing records by adding an electronic availability note (often, "Also available via the Internet") and an LPS PURL to the 856 field for electronic access. Our use of existing records to record Internet-related information, use of the 856 field, and addition of an electronic-related note are consistent with CONSER guidelines. These policies also reflect the approval of the ALA GODORT Cataloging Committee.

When no suitable record for a physical format version of an electronic work is available to be upgraded, we produce an "electronic only" record as the means of providing access. In some instances, records representing works that existed only in electronic form and were cataloged initially as "electronic only" are upgraded by the addition of physical description data to reflect subsequent publishing of paper and other editions. Thus, a record for a work cataloged as "electronic only" may itself be upgraded to reflect the availability of later physical form editions.

Our most recent cataloging policy initiative is to create "collection level" records for providing access to related, multiple electronic works accessible from a single main address. This policy is consistent with AACR2 and its use was authorized by the ALA GODORT Cataloging Committee. This policy was implemented in 1998 and provides users with reasonable access to works, through OPACs, as they are actually accessible at agency Web sites. Collection level records contribute to our efforts to provide access to electronic works even as we continue to catalog and, through the locate function of the Monthly Catalog Web edition, provide locations for physical format works distributed to depository libraries. Application of our collection level record policy gives LPS the flexibility to provide aggregate cataloging records for Internet sites and products that are valuable to users but cannot reasonably and cost-effectively be "dissected" and cataloged at the "piece" level.

With responsibility for managing the national Cataloging and Indexing Program for U.S. Government publications, we make concerted efforts to work with the Depository Library Council, the ALA GODORT Cataloging Committee, and CONSER to assure that our Internet-related cataloging policies meet national standards and provide access to electronic works for as many libraries as possible. In doing so, we have worked through several phases in an incremental manner to consult with people, to test concepts, and to establish increasingly large-scale operations in the context of FDLP services. Our Internet policies are available for review at the FDLP Administration Web page. As with our operations, these policies evolve as they are applied and tested against real world conditions.

To assist with efforts to enter a new evolutionary phase of services in the context of an FDLP Electronic Collection, we have asked Laurie Hall, LPS Program Analyst, and Judy Andrews, Electronic Transition Specialist, to work with librarians and technical staff from areas within the Library Programs Service and the Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services. This group was formed several months ago to advise LPS management on issues associated with electronic FDLP services and to review policies and procedures. This group also was asked to investigate how more efficient operations could be established in the context of an electronic collection that incorporates archiving as a service. Our staff members have worked to advise LPS management on various matters. As such, Laurie抯 presentation reflects current thinking rather than new policies that have been firmly established, although, as you will hear, some experimentation and testing is underway.

We look forward to hearing your comments concerning the substance of Laurie抯 presentation. We at LPS recognize that, as in the past, our future initiatives and proactive efforts to move the program towards an increasingly electronic FDLP benefit from hearing your comments and from consulting with many of our program抯 stakeholders.

As always, it is a pleasure for me to be here to meet with colleagues from throughout the United States. I appreciate this opportunity and look forward to your comments. I hope this presentation has provided a useful context for Laurie抯 presentation.

Putting the Collection Management Plan into Effect
Remarks by Laurie Beyer Hall
Program Analyst

Good morning! Today I am going to talk about the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) Electronic Collection. Specific cataloging practices, such as the application of PURLS and the use of the 856 field that were just discussed, must be examined within the broader context of LPS mission, goals and the vision for building the FDLP Electronic Collection.

In mid-November, I was given the task of overseeing the analysis and development of procedures that reflect the policies described in the collection management plan, Managing the FDLP Electronic Collection, published in October 1998. (Copies were distributed to all libraries and it is also available for download from the FDLP Administration page.) In other words, I was tasked with preparing to, "make it happen" in LPS.

[ was ] http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/ecplan.html [ now ] http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/ecplan.html Managing the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document

For those of you who don't know me, I usually don't attend conferences. I'm behind the scenes. I do all sorts of different things. In LPS, I've been a cataloger, a supervisor in Cataloging, temporary chief of the Cataloging Branch, and currently I'm the systems/program analyst for several LPS systems. Before coming to LPS in the mid-80's, I worked in a corporate library, a public library and two academic libraries, one in the Federal Depository Library Program. Before this project began, I was the voice behind askLPS and I've worked on a variety of projects from the Web applications for item selections to WEBTech Notes. So I guess Gil Baldwin thought I have enough experience to handle such a task. We shall see. Building the FDLP Electronic Collection is a very daunting yet exciting prospect because for the first time in many years, GPO will actually have a collection to build, manage and care for.

To jump start the project, I began talking to LPS staff to try to get a handle on all of the issues involved and soon realized that I could not handle this project alone. I cajoled Gil into allowing Judy Andrews, Electronic Transition Specialist, to be my partner in this endeavor. One of Judy's assignments since she came to LPS this past summer has been to evaluate existing Pathway Services.

Judy and I began assessing prior attempts by LPS to bring electronic resources into the FDLP. The piecemeal approach that LPS developed over the last few years had its problems. Attempting to manipulate the existing workflow, which was developed for tangible products, created inconsistencies and bottlenecks. It soon became apparent that we needed to look at electronic resources from a "holistic" approach, through the life cycle of each resource. We gathered together a team comprised of LPS and Electronic Information Dissemination Service (EIDS) staff to discuss how to identify, evaluate, acquire, catalog, and provide ongoing access to the electronic resources that would become part of the FDLP Electronic Collection.

Working together with catalogers, classifiers, technology types and just plain librarians, the group recognized there were three important goals that would guide the building of the electronic collection. These were: the need to provide for permanent public access to Government information; the recognition of the reference needs of our user community: and, our historical role of providing quality cataloging for Government information resources.

Workgroup Goals for Building the FDLP Electronic Collection Provide permanent public access to government information. Recognize the reference needs of our user community Provide quality bibliographic control of Government information

The goals the team identified follow the policies outlined in Managing the FDLP Electronic Collection, and are reasonable extensions of the authority mandated in Title 44, Chapters 19, and 41, the GPO Access law.

Policy and Law Framework Managing the FDLP Electronic Collection Title 44, Chapters 19 and 41, U.S. Code

The team is investigating a wide variety of issues. We will be exploring archiving technologies, building decision matrixes and discussing possible changes to online products and services. We will be experimenting with a lot of approaches, so be patient as we work through this project. This collection is unique and some of the standard techniques we have employed in providing information to the depository community in the past do not work as well as they should. We have to be inventive. And in this dynamic environment it's difficult to agree on the best approaches to take.

THE FDLP ELECTRONIC COLLECTION What made our task a little bit easier is the fact that we were not building a collection from scratch. The collection, as defined in the management plan, consists of four categories. Two of the four major components of the FDLP Electronic Collection are already well established: category one, the core legislative and regulatory GPO Access products, and category four, the tangible electronic Government information products distributed to Federal depository libraries.

The FDLP Electronic Collection Consists of: Core legislative and regulatory GPO Access products which will reside permanently on GPO servers. Other remotely accessible products managed by either GPO or by other institutions with which GPO has established formal agreements. Remotely accessible electronic Government information products that GPO identifies, describes and links to but which remain under the control of the originating agencies Tangible electronic Government Information products distributed to federal depository libraries

Recognizing that these portions of the collection exist, we chose to focus our efforts on the remaining two components of the collection. These are category two, the remotely accessible products managed by either GPO or other institutions which GPO has established formal agreements, and category three, remotely accessible electronic Government information products that GPO identifies, describes and links to but which remain under the control of the originating agencies. Even though LPS is focusing primarily on these two parts of the collection, the team is cognizant of and discussing the other major issues relevant to the other parts of the collection.

Here are some of the tasks the team and other LPS staff will be working on in the months to come:

1. Enlarge and improve communications
2. Refine criteria for selection
3. Refine criteria for analyzing resources selected for the collection
4. Test processing decisions
5. Investigate storage options
6. Evaluate locator services
7. Investigate collection management implications

One of the major factors influencing the effective management of the collection is communications. Because so many parties have a vested interest in the FDLP Electronic Collection, the task of facilitating effective communications is critical. To organize this effort, the LPS team have identified four groups of constituents where our communications efforts will be focused in the coming months. They are:

1. FDLP depository community;
2. publishing agencies;
3. peer institutions such as the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the National Libraries; and,
4. internal GPO offices.

Communicating with the FDLP depository library community about our plans for the electronic collection is the reason we're here today. We want to continue discussions about the electronic services LPS and GPO currently provide through feedback from focus groups, askLPS and conferences, including the Federal Librarians Round Table (FLRT). We welcome your suggestions and comments concerning our plans for the electronic collection as outlined here. And we always encourage active participation in our endeavors such as Browse Topics, partnerships and other proposed electronic initiatives including archiving electronic resources.

Our outreach activities with agencies will help us better manage the resources that make up the FDLP Electronic Collection. By establishing contacts with the agency management personnel, we can explain the importance of providing permanent public access to agency electronic resources and investigate arrangements that will make the goal possible. We plan to become more active participants at conferences hosted by the Institute of Federal Printing and Electronic Publishing, the Federal Webmasters Group and the Federal Publishers Committee. We hope this participation will broaden our knowledge. It will assist us in our evaluations of GPO Web services and enable us to articulate the concerns that we hear from the FDLP community. We are investigating system applications that will allow us to automatically notify an agency when we select an electronic resource for the collection.

We continue to be in contact with peer institutions such as the National Agricultural Library (NAL), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Library of Congress (LC), and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). Staff of LPS and ETS continue attending meetings dealing with NAL electronic initiatives, LC systems technology activities and most recently , the GPO/NTIS partnership. By attending and participating in such initiatives, a great deal of information can be gleaned and shared with the team. New insights can positively influence our work as we build the electronic collection.

We are also enhancing communications with other organizations inside GPO. We continue to interact with staff from EIDS, GPO Production and the Office of Information Resources Management (OIRM) concerning technology issues. Team members are discussing issues related to software for archiving, authentication and server platforms for storing electronic resources in the collection.

Preliminary Criteria for Selection: As our communications efforts continue, our team is also developing the criteria for selection. The first step in determining what will be included in the collection is to assess the legal authority that guides our selection of resources. As with collection development plans that libraries develop for tangible products, electronic resources are selected if they meet the goals and operational mission of the institution. In the case of the FDLP Electronic Collection, the acquisition of online resources is guided by the mission and goals of the FDLP as outlined in Title 44, Chapter 19, U.S. Code, Section 1902. "Government publications, except those... required for official use only or for strictly administrative or operational purposes... shall be made available... for public information." Evaluation includes analyzing the resource to determine if it meets the basic tenets of Title 44. Is it official, authentic Government information? This is usually defined by a .gov, .mil, or .fed.us domain, but occasionally may be an .edu or .org domain, if information found on the site indicates an official relationship. Does it present a major activity of the agency, or is it the product of a major activity of the agency? Reviewing the resources one by one tests both the item and our selection criteria.

Preliminary Criteria for Selection Title 44, Chapter 19 U.S. Code Official, authentic Government information Presents a major activity of the agency, or is a product of a major activity of the agency Not selected Official Use Only Administrative Use

Non-selection:

Most collection plans allow for the non-selection of materials that do not meet the scope of the institution. In the case of the FDLP, Title 44 provides guidance for allowing the exclusion of official use only or administrative material. The LPS team has identified some items that we will not include in the FDLP Electronic Collection. These items are:

1. events/announcements;
2. biographies;
3. job announcements;
4. some news releases;
5. organizational charts;
6. sales/promotional literature;
7. posters; and,
8. items of low informational content.

We may expand this list as we continue to review new online resources.

Preliminary Criteria for Analyzing Resources Selected for the Collection: Once the selection has been made, the team examines the item's presentation and content. At our team meetings we always ask a lot of questions. Oftentimes, we may e-mail the webmaster or call the agency for additional information. We try to determine how valuable and useful this product is to the FDLP community, and which current locator service would best provide the bibliographic control for this resource. One thing the team agrees on is that some form of bibliographic control will be provided for all resources selected for inclusion in the FDLP Electronic Collection.

Preliminary Criteria for Analyzing Resources Selected for the FDLP Collection Is this resource an important product for the FDLP user community? Is this suitable for the FDLP user community? What level of bibliographic control would be best for this resource? What locator service will be best suited for this resource?

Processing Decisions: After selection analysis is complete we continue by questioning how a resource will be processed. We are in the initial stages of building a decision matrix, based on our answers to these questions. This matrix will expand and grow as the team continues to evaluate online resources. We will be using actual resources to work through the matrix to see if the results are satisfactory. Beginning with the 1999 "New Additions" list on Browse Electronic Titles (BET), entries have been processed using this preliminary decision matrix. All the processing decisions have yet to be made. We plan to have the matrix more complete by the April Federal Depository Library Conference.

Processing Decisions Is this in scope for the FDLP? What type of product is this? Should this be in GILs? Should this be in Browse Topics? Should this be on the BET? Should this have a PURL? Should this be archived? How should this be cataloged? New or adapted? Level of cataloging

Evaluating Locator Services: Examining a resource throughout its life cycle includes listing it in the most appropriate locator service. LPS staff is brainstorming and we are currently examining the potential merger of several tools. This may entail changes in format and presentation for the services we continue to maintain. Our major goal is to provide the services that are easy to use, easy to maintain, and give the best possible access to the electronic resources in the collection. We are currently focussing on BET and Browse Topics.

Evaluation of Locator Services Goal: Provide a limited number of tools that are easy to use, easy to maintain and give the best possible access to the electronic resources Address issues presented by focus Examine ways to merge and consolidate Test format and presentation changes Solicit partners

BET:

After hearing user input from various focus groups, we are working on some major improvements to the BET. Users want the ability to browse, but also the ability to search all the entries on the BET. We plan to create a database of electronic resources. We are playing with several names:

• CORE - Current Online Resource;
• NET - New Electronic Titles; and,
• SCORE - Searching Current Online Resources.

Let us know what you think. We will continue a browsable list of new additions to the collection, but instead of maintaining a long list by agency, you will be able to search a database. We plan to use the same OpenText software that we currently use for WEBTech Notes. The database will include previous BET entries and will be updated weekly. Look for announcements on the BET site.

We are also investigating additional ways to present Browse Topics. We are talking with depository librarians who currently provide a topical approach to Government electronic resources. Maintaining Topics is very labor intensive for LPS staff. We are open to developing a partnership arrangement for Topics and welcome any suggestions from the community.

Storing the Collection: We've selected it; we've processed it, and found a way for a user to find it. Now how do we make sure it's still there when you need it? The team envisions the collection being stored using a combination of server space at GPO, at agency sites and at institutional partners' sites. We are currently investigating the possibility of permanently capturing selected agency online resources and archiving them on GPO servers or partnership sites. We are testing archive software and exploring server capacities. At this time, we are considering have the PURL direct users to the agency version until the agency link is broken and cannot be reestablished. Then users will be directed to the archived version stored on GPO servers. This might be an answer to part of the challenge of providing permanent public access. Other questions we are currently asking are how to organize an archive, how users will be assured that the archived version is authentic and what potential maintenance issues we will face as the collection grows.

Storing the Collection GPO Access GPO Archive Agency Resources Partners

Managing the Collection: The team, in these short few months, has identified a multitude of tasks and proposed directions for LPS to take. These initial efforts are essentially preparing a foundation for building, organizing and managing the collection. This work has been accomplished using existing GPO personnel. An electronic collection manager is needed to coordinate these diverse activities. LPS is taking steps to fill the position of Collection Manager. This will be a key position for the FDLP Electronic Collection. The manager will need to address personnel, maintenance, resource allocation issues and promote cooperation with partners. Certainly a challenge!

Managing the Collection Hire a Collection manager Future Decisions for the Collection Manager and staff: Personnel Maintenance Resource Allocation Promote Cooperation with Partners

Where do we go from here? We have a lot of work to do as you can see. Gil and other LPS managers, Tad and Robin, whose staff is part of the team, continue to support the team and its work.

In the months to come, the LPS team will continue to pursue:

1. Better communications with all concerned stakeholders;
2. Work towards consistent internal processing procedures;
3. Create locator services that are easy to use and manage;
4. Pursue permanent public access to the FDLP electronic collection, and finally,
5. Investigate the feasibility of installing an integrated library system at LPS!

I want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak with you this morning about this new endeavor. Be sure to give us your input. Judy and I will be discussing our progress in April at the Federal Depository Library Conference at the Holiday Inn-Bethesda in Bethesda, MD. We'll see you there.

DAB Highlights
Remarks by Robin Haun-Mohamed
Chief, Depository Administration Branch

Good morning! I usually like to begin with highlights and work into the more routine material. Today I am going to switch the formula and begin with everyone抯 least favorite topic, depository microfiche. In many ways the microfiche products are the "great unsung heroes" of the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). When I was a depository librarian I disliked having to process microfiche. As a depository library inspector, I hated having to bring up the topic (but I always found the rubber bands on that one piece in the cabinet!). As Chief of the Depository Administration Branch, I find microfiche are often the best solution to the fugitive document problem, but are not well liked by those in the depository community.

Let me give you some figures dealing with microfiche and the number of titles associated with physical products distributed to the Federal depository libraries to get a feel for the role of microfiche in the FDLP.

• In FY 1995, LPS distributed 45,000 titles, 60% in microfiche format.

• In FY 1996, LPS distributed 30,000 titles, 49% in microfiche format.

• In FY 1997, LPS distributed 30,300 titles, 54% in microfiche format.

• In FY 1998, LPS distributed 39,000 titles, 65% in microfiche format.

In light of these figures, I would like to take some time now to explain the acquisition process associated with microfiche titles, the conversion process as performed by the full-service contractors, and the administration of the microfiche conversion process.

Recently we have seen and heard much discussion about the requirement for Federal Government agencies to provide material for distribution through the FDLP. While in theory this is a very straightforward process, in practice it often is a catch-as-catch-can process. Many agencies routinely send their material to GPO for printing and replication, and we add the Federal depository library requirements to these orders. This is the process by which we obtain most material distributed in paper and CD-ROM formats. We often refer to this process as "riding the requisition." FDLP appropriated funds pay for these copies to be produced for distribution to the libraries.

Some agencies have the authority to do printing outside of GPO either under authorized waivers or through "direct deal" contracts with GPO-approved printing contractors. Title 44 puts the responsibility on the agency or publishing entity to provide the copies for depository distribution. Agencies routinely use the "Notification of Intent to Publish" form to advise GPO of upcoming publications and to determine the quantity of publications needed to meet their FDLP requirements. So far, so good.

Next, let抯 review the problem of when agencies do not provide publications for the FDLP for any number of reasons, including funding limitations, cooperative publications, agency format preferences and software requirements, failure of agency staff to know about the Title 44 requirements, and the most common reason, "oops, I forgot to notify LPS."

Once a product has been published, it is very difficult to obtain, say 560 copies for distribution to the libraries in a physical format. The approach we use most often is to ask for multiple copies of the product in paper or tangible format. Then when the publishing entity is unable to meet our request, we can act like the good cop and settle for one copy when we feel confident the publication is suitable for microfiche conversion. When we obtain the one copy, we review it for microfiche conversion as the first option. If it has many color pictures, color charts, or is likely to be a reference title, we then must decide if we should go back to press or replicate the publication on either a quick turn-around contract or on an in-house high-speed copier.

The costs of going back to press for products produced outside GPO can be very high. First a copy of original negatives and artwork must be obtained. Then this material is sent out on a contract to one of GPO抯 many print contractors. The negatives then must be received from the contractor and delivered to the originating agency. Often agencies no longer have the negatives or are unwilling to lend them to us. At this point we must reproduce the publication on a copier or convert it to microfiche.

Some of the factors we take into account when making these decisions include:

• The cost of going back-to-press if we have the negatives.
• The cost when we do not have the negatives and must pay for mastering and set-up costs.
• If the publication is black and white, we can use the high- speed duplicator.
• The cost of converting to microfiche.

Once the decision is made to microfiche the product, the material is sent to the Microfiche Control Section where it is prepared for conversion under one of the 15 microfiche contracts currently in place. Similar titles are gathered and sent to the microfiche contractor, who produces the original microfiche shipping lists, films the publications for microfiche conversion, and duplicates and distributes the microfiche to the libraries according to each library抯 item selection profile.

Currently we have four microfiche contractors who do microfiche conversion for LPS. A fifth contractor, Lake George Industries, filed for bankruptcy last fall. They have not yet returned all of the material sent for conversion. LPS identified and re-acquired all but three of the missing titles and these have been resubmitted for microfiche conversion to another contractor. We are still trying to obtain copies of the missing titles.

Once the material has been converted and the duplicates made, the material is sent by the contractors directly to the libraries in weekly batches. The contractor is responsible for filling any valid claims made within 60 days of the date on the shipping lists. They must also return to GPO for inspection a box of material which includes the original cut-up publication(s), a camera master (first generation silver microfiche), a second generation silver microfiche, and a diazo copy for each publication sent for conversion. The contractor is also responsible for providing us with a diskette containing the item number, class number, title and shipping list information for each title sent for conversion. Other receivables due from the contractors are the original shipping list, 25 copies of the shipping lists, and various management reports. When this material is received at GPO, we inspect a percentage of the jobs for contract compliance.

I am sure many of you remember the contractor defaults of the late eighties where the microfiche conversion titles were essentially all sent to one contractor. One of the results of that experience was to break up the material into several contracts, thus allowing some of the smaller contractors to bid on contracts and setting up a mechanism to insure there are multiple contractors providing conversion service for LPS. Thus, we now have the four contractors, and before any contracts are awarded to new contractors, they must pass extensive pre-inspection tests.

The bid process for contracts follows Government regulations, with low bidder generally being awarded the contract. Many new microfiche contractors bid too low, not realizing all the requirements of the contract and the time and resources it takes to do the conversion. Another problem you often see today is the lack of companies capable of doing microfiche conversion.

We do not have microfiche shipping list information available from our acquisition system. This system, called ACSIS (Acquisitions, Classification, and Shipment Information System), not to be confused with GPO Access, has the classification information for all products distributed to the libraries since 1992, and for many of the older products back to 1976. But it does not and may never have the microfiche shipping list information added to the product records. The microfiche processing component of ACSIS was to be worked on after the initial implementation of the system. Our ACSIS system is not yet complete, but additional enhancements to legacy systems are on hold pending resolution of the Y2K issues.

When we receive a request for microfiche shipping list information for products received in libraries, we must look them up by print order. A few minutes ago I said similar material is joined together to prepare for conversion. This means each day抯 material sent to a contractor on one of the specific programs is done on a print order. The title, item number, and class number are generally not included on the print order and even when they are included on the print order, they are not in a searchable field. The process to respond to these requests is to look through the print orders for the days around when the product was classed. As there is no appreciable backlog in the Micrographics Control Section for print products to be sent to the microfiche contractors, we can generally locate the information. But it is not easy and it is time consuming.

Microfiche Shipping List numbers are assigned by GPO and given to the contractors as the material on each print order is prepared for conversion. Recently we began posting the microfiche shipping list numbers and contractor information on a Web page on a monthly basis. This is also a good place to check if there are cancelled shipping lists, as in the recent situation with Lake George Industries and the bankruptcy problems. You can easily locate this Web page from the Tools section of the FDLP Administration page.

Material distributed in microfiche format also places responsibilities on staff in the depository libraries. The same check-in requirements for paper products apply to the microfiche products. Material must be checked-in to the piece level. There must be adequate viewing equipment available for library patrons to read the material. The microfiche must be stored in a suitable area. Claims for missing microfiche must be made within the required time frame from the official microfiche shipping lists.

I feel one final issue should be addressed under the libraries� responsibility for microfiche material. I often hear librarians say the microfiche material is not used and therefore the librarian decides to deselect all item numbers associated with microfiche format. And while this may be the goal of the librarian, you may not be successful because you will still receive occasional microfiche titles from the resolution of fugitive document problems. This is a disservice to your community. Many publications are available only in this format, whether by agency choice or because of the many reasons I have already gone through. The material may not be highly used now, but it may be needed a few years down the road. Please carefully consider the content before deciding against an item simply because it is available only in microfiche format.

Because of the many recent problems we have been having with the microfiche conversion process, we are putting additional resources into the area to review the current processing procedures and adding an additional microfiche inspector. This inspector will not only inspect the microfiche, but review the receipt of all deliverables required under the current microfiche contracts. We are also adding to each microfiche contract the requirement for the contractor to access an anonymous FTP site on a weekly basis to pull down each library抯 current item selection profile. About half of the contracts already have this requirement in place and we will build this requirement into all of our 15 contracts as they come up for renewal.

OK, so if you have fallen asleep, or your neighbor has, please wake up! In the DAB Update handout located in the back of the room we have included the usual what抯 new of interest and what抯 coming up on the horizon. To tempt you I will give you a few quick highlights. The 1999 U.S. Industry and Trade Outlook is expected from NTIS sometime this month. Both O*Net and the 1998 World Factbook were distributed to libraries in early January. The first release of the IRS Tax Forms on CD-ROM will be shipped out early in February. There has been quite a bit of interest in the 1997 edition of Crime in the United States. We have received the publication, but due to contractor error we are over 250 copies short. We have already notified the contractor to obtain sufficient copies for distribution to the libraries. And from the Census Bureau, the American FactFinder database, perhaps more familiar to depository librarians as DADS, is expected to roll out this month.

There are a few other pieces of information dealing with classification and acquisitions. As Gil noted in his remarks yesterday, LPS is also beginning to implement the policy of disseminating new Government document periodical titles only in electronic format. When we determine that a new periodical title is available on a Web site and meets the criteria listed in the handout titled Migration of Physical Format Products to Online Distribution, we are not obtaining the duplicative tangible products, but are pointing libraries directly to the newly discovered online site. Only when the material is of exceptional value, such as a reference resource, will LPS obtain tangible copies for distribution to the libraries.

Another project we are working on in DAB is the development of a database for superseded information. We have over 30 volunteers who will review the current paper Superseded List and the supplements in the Administrative Notes Technical Supplement. We will also be focusing specifically on the tangible electronic products to determine which supersede on a regular and irregular basis.

On behalf of the Electronic Transition Staff (ETS), I have been asked to bring you up-to-date on the NTIS-GPO Imaging Pilot Project: Phase One. In October, the 22 participating libraries received a packet of information from NTIS on the project. Since October, NTIS has completed the entry screens to access the database and set up a discussion list for the project participants. In January, the participating libraries should have received a packet with the user ID and password information required for the library staff to access the database. I have been fortunate in that I was allowed to go into the database to give it a try. Depository access for the pilot project participants is straightforward. The searching is easy to do. All in all, it is a cool service. Look for more on this project at the upcoming Federal Depository Library Conference in April.

I always like to close on an upbeat note. We have had positive results recently from agencies when we request materials in response to askLPS and GOVDOC-L inquiries. For example, we expect to receive copies of Natural Resources Inventory Data on CD-ROM later this year. We have also requested copies of the President抯 Own, a ten disc CD-ROM set celebrating the 200^th anniversary of the President抯 Marine Corps Band, and the multi-volume Drug Court Survey Report for microfiche conversion.