Report to the Congress
STUDY TO IDENTIFY MEASURES NECESSARY
FOR A SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION
TO A MORE ELECTRONIC
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM
GP 3.2:EL 2/3/FINAL
Report to the Congress
STUDY TO IDENTIFY MEASURES NECESSARY
FOR A SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION
TO A MORE ELECTRONIC
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM
As Required By
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996
Public Law 104-53
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, DC 20401
June 1996
GPO Publication 500.11
Report to the Congress
STUDY TO IDENTIFY MEASURES NECESSARY
FOR A SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION TO A MORE ELECTRONIC
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM
As Required By
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996
Public Law 10453
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, DC 20401
June 1996
GPO Publication 500.11
Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Study to identify measures necessary for a successful transition
to a more electronic
Federal Depository Library Program : as required by Legislative
Branch Appropriations
Act, 1996, Public Law 104-53 : report to the Congress.
p. cm. (GPO publication ; 500.11)
"June, 1996"
Includes bibliographical references.
Supt. of Docs. no.: GP 3.2:EL 2/3/FINAL
1. Federal Depository Library Program. 2. Government
publications--United
States--Data processing. 3. Depository libraries--United
States--Automation.
4. Online information processing services--United States. 5.
Digital
libraries--United States. I. United States. Government Printing
Office. II. Series: United States. Government Printing Office.
GPO publication ; 500.11
CIP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary i
Definitions v
I. Introduction 1
II. Methodology 3
III. Principles for Federal Government Information 4
IV. Mission and Goals for the Federal Depository Library Program
5
V. Policy Issues That Impact Publishing Agencies, GPO, NARA,
Depository
Libraries,
the Public and the Private Sector 7
VI. Comparison of the Historical FDLP With the Electronic FDLP
as Envisioned in the
Strategic Plan 11
Goal 1: Ensure equitable, no fee, local public access 11
Goal 2: Use new information technologies to improve public access
14
Goal 3: Provide information in formats appropriate to users and
intended usage 17
Goal 4: Enable the public to locate information 18
Goal 5: Ensure both timely, current and permanent, future public
access 19
Goal 6: Facilitate preservation of information through NARA 21
Goal 7: Ensure that the program is cost-effective for all parties
22
VII. Results and Conclusions 26
Attachments
Attachment A: Legislative Requirements for the Study A-1
Attachment B: Roster of Working Group Members, Advisors and Staff
A-7
Attachment C: List of Tasks A-13
Attachment D: Task Force Reports A-17
D-1 Task 1: Technical Analysis by a FederallyFunded Research and
Development Center (FFRDC) A-19
D-2 Task 2: Identification of Relevant Laws, Regulations and
Policies
Regarding Government Information Dissemination A-23
D-3 Task 3: Bibliography of Information Relevant to the Study
A-35
D-4 Task 5: Evaluation of Incentives for Publishing Agencies to
Migrate
from Print Products to Electronic Formats A-47
Attachments, continued
Attachment D: Task Force Reports, continued
D-5 Task 6: Evaluation of Current Laws Governing the Federal
Depository
Library Program and Recommendation of Legislative Changes A-55
D-6 Task 7: Survey of Federal Agencies to Identify CDROM Titles
Not
Currently Included in the Federal Depository Library Program A-63
D-7 Task 8A: Case Study on Congressional Bills A-69
D-8 Task 8B: Case Study on the Congressional Serial Set A-75
D-9 Task 8C: Case Study on the Department of Energy (DOE)
Research
Reports A-83
D-10 Task 8D: Case Study on the Office of Technology Assessment
(OTA)
Reports A-91
D-11 Task 9: Evaluation of Inclusion in Electronic Formats of
Materials Not
Traditionally Included in the FDLP in Either Paper or Microfiche
A-103
D-12 Task 9A: Case Study on Securities and Exchange Commission
EDGAR Data A-115
D-13 Task 9B: Case Study on Federal District and Circuit Court
Opinions A-121
D-14 Task 10A: Federal Programs Permitting or Requiring the Sale
of
Information to Recover Costs -- Case Study on STAT-USA Services
A-131
D-15 Task 10B: Federal Programs Permitting or Requiring the Sale
of
Information to Recover Costs -- Case Study on the National
Library
of Medicine MEDLINE Service A-139
Attachment E: National Commission on Libraries and Information
Science (NCLIS)
Principles of Public Information A-147
Attachment F: Title 44 United States Code Chapter 19--Depository
Library Program A-151
Attachment G: Summary of Results from the 1995 Biennial Survey
of Federal
Depository Libraries A-159
Attachment H: Recommended Minimum Specifications for Public
Access
Workstations
in Federal Depository Libraries A-167
Attachment I: Comments from U.S. Senators A-173
Attachment J: Minutes from Meeting of Working Group and Advisors
on April 18, 1996 A-181
Attachment K: Comments from the Depository Library Council to
the Public Printer A-191
Attachment L: Comments from the Information Industry Association
A-209
Attachments, continued
Attachment M: Comments from the Library Associations A-219
Attachment N: Comments from the National Commission on Libraries
and
Information Science A-253
Exhibit 1: Federal Depository Library Program: Information
Dissemination
and
Access Strategic Plan, FY 1996 - FY 2001
Executive Summary E-i
Principles for Federal Government Information E-iii
Mission and Goals for the Federal Depository Library Program E-iv
Basic Assumptions for the Information Dissemination and Access
Strategic Plan E-v
Definitions E-vi
I. Background E-1
II. Approach to Electronic Dissemination and Access E-2
III. Depository Library Roles and Service Expectations E-8
IV. Administrative and Support Activities E-11
V. Impact of this Plan on other SOD Programs E-12
List of Appendices E-15
Appendix A: Paper Titles in the FDLP--Core List E-17
Appendix B: FDLP System Requirements for Electronic Access E-19
Appendix C: Transition Chronology E-21
Appendix D: Incorporating Agency Information Products in the FDLP
E-25
Report to the Congress
STUDY TO IDENTIFY MEASURES NECESSARY
FOR A SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION TO A MORE ELECTRONIC
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Emerging technologies afford tremendous opportunities for
improved
and enhanced public access to Government information. These
opportunities
bring new challenges that require the reevaluation of current
information dissemination programs to take advantage of new
opportunities
and minimize disruption of public access during this period of
rapid change. In August, 1995, the U.S. Government Printing
Office
(GPO), at the direction of Congress, initiated a cooperative
study
to identify measures necessary for a successful transition to
a more electronic Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). The
study was concluded in March 1996, and a draft report was issued
in order to provide an extended opportunity for public comment.
This is the final report to Congress on the FDLP Study. In order
to complete the study and prepare this report, it was necessary
to establish definitions to clarify the meaning of several
important
words and phrases. These definitions are provided on page v of
this report.
To implement the study, the Public Printer established a working
group consisting of representatives from GPO, appropriate
Congressional
committees, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA), the Federal Publishers Committee (FPC),
the Interagency Council on Printing and Publication Services
(ICPPS),
the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and the depository
library community. He also invited a number of organizations to
identify representatives to serve as advisors to the working
group.
Comments from advisors are provided in Attachments J through N.
A substantial amount of useful information was gathered and
numerous
issues and alternatives were identified and examined during the
course of the study. These are summarized in this report. A
number
of specific tasks were identified to provide information and
alternatives
for consideration. The preparation of the task force reports and
the review of public comments resulting from their dissemination
were the primary fact-finding activities of the study. The task
force reports are included in Attachment D; they were the product
of a substantial amount of effort on the part of the task leaders
and participants.
Separately, a document entitled the Electronic Federal
Depository
Library Program: Transition Plan, FY 1996 - FY 1998 was
developed
by GPO and included with its FY 1997 appropriations request.
Public
comments in response to this document also provided useful
information
to the study participants, and led directly to the development
of the Federal Depository Library Program: Information
Dissemination
and Access Strategic Plan, FY 1996 - FY 2001, included with
this report as Exhibit 1. The Strategic Plan proposes four ways
in which GPO can bring electronic information into the FDLP:
- - GPO can identify, describe and link the public to the
wealth
of distributed Government information maintained at Government
electronic information services for free public use.
- - GPO can establish reimbursable agreements with agencies
that
provide feebased Government electronic information services in
order to provide free public access to their information through
the FDLP.
- - GPO can "ride" agency requisitions and pay for
depository
copies of tangible electronic information products, such as
CD-ROM
titles, even if they are not produced or procured through GPO.
- - GPO can obtain from agencies electronic source files for
information
the agencies do not wish to disseminate through their own
Government
electronic information services. These files can be made
available
through the GPO Access services or disseminated to
depository
libraries in CD-ROM or other tangible format.
Section V, Policy Issues That Impact Publishing Agencies, GPO,
NARA, Depository Libraries, the Public and the Private Sector,
summarizes the major issues identified in the course of the study
process. While many of these issues are not new, this study has
examined the issues in the new context of the rapid shift of the
FDLP into a more electronic program.
The major conclusions of the study are summarized below:
Scope of the FDLP: There is widespread interest in
expanding
the content of the program to make it more comprehensive, and
a great deal of optimism that the rapid expansion of agency
electronic
publishing offers cost-effective options to do so. Nevertheless,
the highest priority remains the retention of information content
that historically has been in the program and is rapidly leaving
it as agencies move from print to electronic publishing or
eliminate
Government information products to save costs.
Notification and Compliance: The historical program relied
heavily on the ability of the FDLP to obtain material as it was
printed or procured through GPO. With the increasing emphasis
on electronic dissemination and decreasing compliance with
statutory
requirements for agencies to print through GPO, identifying and
obtaining information for the FDLP is becoming increasingly
difficult.
There must be new means to inform agencies of their
responsibilities
and to ensure compliance with agency FDLP obligations. There must
be effective means for all three branches of Government to notify
GPO of their intent to: (1) initiate, (2) substantially modify,
or (3) terminate Government information products. This includes
Government information products in all formats, including
information
available from Government electronic information services, such
as agency World Wide Web sites.
Permanent Access to Authentic Information: The FDLP has
the responsibility for providing permanent public access to the
official Government information products disseminated through
the program./1/ Historically, permanent access has been the role
of the regional depository libraries, and this has been a
cost-effective
means of ensuring that Government information products remained
available to the public indefinitely. Permanent access also is
an essential element of the electronic depository library
program,
but it will be more difficult to attain. To ensure permanent
public
access to official electronic Government information products,
all of the institutional program stakeholders (information
producing
agencies, GPO, depository libraries and NARA) must cooperate to
establish authenticity, provide persistent identification and
description of Government information products, and establish
appropriate arrangements for its continued accessibility. This
includes identification and implementation of standard formats
for FDLP dissemination/2/ and providing for the technological
currency
of the electronic information products available at GPO for
remote
access. In the case of tangible information products, permanent
access will remain a responsibility of regional depository
libraries,
while in the case of remotely accessible information products,
it will be the responsibility of GPO, as the administrator of
the FDLP, to coordinate a distributed system that provides
continuous,
permanent public access.
/1/ Permanent access is required by 44 U.S.C. §1911:
"Depository libraries not served by a
regional depository library, or that are regional depository
libraries
themselves, shall
retain Government publications permanently in either printed form
or
in microfacsimile
form, except superseded publications or those issued later in
bound
form which may be
discarded as authorized by the Superintendent of Documents."
/2/ Additional conclusions related to the requirement for
assessment of standards for
creation and dissemination of electronic Government information
products are provided
on the next page.
Locator Services: Together, the Cataloging and Indexing
Program required by 44 U.S.C. §1710 and §1711 and the
Locator Services required by 44 U.S.C. §4101 provide the
statutory basis for GPO to assist depository libraries and the
public to identify and obtain access to the full range of
Government
information. In a distributed environment, where libraries and
users often access Government electronic information services
rather than local collections, tools for identifying and locating
information will be critical components of an effective program.
Timetable for Implementation: The Transition Plan,
submitted with the GPO FY 1997 appropriations request, projected
an ambitious, two and one-half year schedule for conversion to
a more electronic FDLP (FY 1996 to FY 1998). Input from
publishing
agencies and depository libraries indicates a five to seven year
transition would be more realistic and cost-effective since it
would allow GPO to convert to electronic information at the same
pace as publishing agencies can produce it and depository
libraries
can absorb it. It will be substantially more costly for GPO to
convert agency print publications to electronic formats than it
will be to work in partnership with the agencies, assisting them
in accelerating their own electronic publishing initiatives.
Consequently,
the Strategic Plan attached to the report as Exhibit 1 proposes
a transition period of FY 1996 through FY 2001.
Assessment of Standards for Creation and Dissemination of
Electronic
Government Information Products: For the successful
implementation
of a more electronic FDLP, the Congress, GPO and the library
community
must have additional information about future agency publishing
plans, as well as an expert evaluation of the cost-effectiveness
and usefulness of various electronic formats that may be utilized
for depository library dissemination or access. A central
implementation
issue is the identification and utilization of standards for
creation
and dissemination of electronic Government information products.
These standards would enhance access to and use of Government
information by both the Government and the public. The Government
produces an enormous quantity and variety of information. The
standards best suited for one type of data may be substantially
less suited, or even entirely inappropriate, for another.
Consequently,
there is no single standard in which all Government information
products can, or should, be created or disseminated.
Nevertheless,
it is in the best interests of the Government, and those who use
Government information, to achieve a greater degree of
standardization
than now exists, and to develop recommended standards for each
major type of Government information product in order to
facilitate
the exchange and use of that information.
To accomplish this, it is first necessary to know the range of
formats Federal agencies currently use in the creation and
dissemination
of information and to assess the de facto or actual standards
that are in use for each major type of data. It also is necessary
to identify areas where there is no standardization, or such
limited
standardization that the effect is virtually the same. Finally,
it would be useful to evaluate standards utilized by private
sector
and other non-governmental publishers. This information will
provide
the basis for an assessment, in consultation with the depository
library community, of the usefulness and costeffectiveness of
various electronic formats for depository library dissemination
or access. It also will be the basis for a dialog with the
National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the National
Commission
on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS), the National
Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST), and others with an interest
in establishing and promulgating Government-wide standards for
information creation and dissemination.
GPO is proposing to accomplish this data gathering and evaluation
through a joint effort with NCLIS. As an independent Federal
agency
established to advise the President and the Congress on national
policies related to library and information services adequate
to meet the needs of the people of the United States, NCLIS is
uniquely situated to coordinate this activity. While substantial
changes are already underway, this assessment of standards for
creation and dissemination of electronic Government information
products should proceed as rapidly as possible in order to assure
a successful and cost-effective transition to a more electronic
FDLP.
Cost of Electronic Information Dissemination: While there
are many benefits inherent in the use of electronic information,
including more timely and broader public access, there is no
conclusive
data at this time to support the assertion that it will result
in significant savings to the program as a whole in the next few
years. Based on comments received, electronic dissemination and
access will shift the costs among the program participants. For
example, GPO will incur additional, recurring costs to provide
permanent public access through its electronic information
services,
as will other Government agencies that maintain information
products
through their own services. Costs for migration can be minimized
by the adoption and use of open systems standards through the
entire life cycle of information productsfrom the time the
original
source files are created by the publishing agencies to final
preservation
by NARA.
Similarly, depository libraries and their users will have to pay
to print, or purchase printed copies of, information that is
needed
in print, but is no longer disseminated in the format through
the FDLP. At the same time, depository libraries will have to
provide specialized staff training, public access workstations,
software and the related services necessary to connect the public
to remotely accessible Government electronic information
services.
GPO will continue to monitor the technological capabilities of
the depository libraries to provide cost-effective public access
to electronic Government information products, particularly as
it relates to the standards utilized by agencies in the creation
and dissemination of electronic Government information products.
GPO also will begin to monitor the costs to users for printing,
downloading and similar services using depository library
equipment.
GPO and other study participants have noted that there is a need
for more in-depth and concrete data on the life cycle costs to
the Government for creating, disseminating and providing
permanent
access to its information products, to depository libraries for
providing public access to them, and to the public for using
them.
However, the transition to electronic dissemination of Government
information is still in its early stages, so it is doubtful that
reliable and conclusive data on life cycle costs could be
gathered
in this rapidly evolving period. Nevertheless, the assessment
of standards proposed in this report is an essential first step
toward the ultimate goal of collecting and analyzing information
life cycle costs. It will provide a basis for further
consultation
with the library community and for discussions with publishing
agencies concerning the appropriate standards for cost-effective
dissemination of Government information products in formats
appropriate
to the needs of users and the intended usage. The assessment also
will provide valuable information to Congress for the future
development
of appropriate and cost-effective Government information policies
and programs.
Legislative Changes: Substantial changes in the FDLP
already
are underway within the context of the existing statute.
Nevertheless,
certain key legislative changes could be made in order to assure
a successful and cost-effective transition to a more electronic
FDLP. These changes are discussed in the report on Task 6
(Attachment
D-5) and many of them are reflected in the preceding conclusions.
DEFINITIONS
The following definitions are provided to clarify the meaning
of several important words and phrases as used in this
report.
Unless otherwise noted, in this report "Government"
always refers to the Government of the United States.
"Agency" means any Federal Government
department,
including any military department, independent regulatory agency,
Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or
other establishment in the executive, legislative, or judicial
branch.
"Depository library" means a library, designated
under the provisions of 44 U.S.C. Chapter 19, which maintains
tangible Government information products for use by the general
public, offers professional assistance in locating and using
Government
information, and provides local capability for the general public
to access Government electronic information services.
The "Federal Depository Library Program" is a
nationwide geographically-dispersed system, established under
the provisions of 44 U.S.C. Chapter 19 and administered by the
Superintendent of Documents, consisting of libraries acting in
partnership with the United States Government for the purpose
of enabling the general public to have local access to Federal
Government information at no cost.
"Government electronic information service"
means
the system or method by which an agency or its authorized agent
provides public access to Government information products via
a telecommunications network.
"Government information" means Government
publications,
or other Government information products, regardless of form or
format, created or compiled by employees of a Government agency,
or at Government expense, or as required by law./1/
/1/ "Government information" has a significantly
broader meaning in the context of
Federal records.
"Government information product" means a
discrete
set of Government information, either conveyed in a tangible
physical
format including electronic media, or made publicly accessible
via a Government electronic information service.
"Migration" means both: (1) the periodic
refreshing
or transfer of Government information products from one medium
to another in order to minimize loss of information due to
physical
deterioration of storage media and (2) the reformatting of
information
to avoid technological obsolescence due to software or platform
dependence.
"Permanent access" means that Government
information
products within the scope of the FDLP remain available for
continuous,
no fee public access through the program/2/. For emphasis, the
phrase
"permanent public access" is sometimes used with
the same definition.
/2/ Permanent access is required by 44 U.S.C. §1911:
"Depository libraries not served by
a regional depository library, or that are regional depository
libraries
themselves, shall
retain Government publications permanently in either printed form
or
in microfacsimile
form, except superseded publications or those issued later in
bound
form..." In the
case of tangible information products, permanent access remains a
responsibility of
regional depository libraries, while in the case of remotely
accessible
Government
information products, it is a responsibility of GPO to coordinate
a
distributed system that
provides continuous, permanent public access.
"Preservation" means that official records of
the Federal Government, including Government information products
made available through the FDLP, which have been determined to
have sufficient historical or other value to warrant being held
and maintained in trust for future generations of Americans, are
retained by the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA).
Report to the Congress
STUDY TO IDENTIFY MEASURES NECESSARY
FOR A SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION TO A MORE ELECTRONIC
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM
I. INTRODUCTION
Emerging technologies afford tremendous opportunities for
improved
and enhanced public access to Government information. These
opportunities
bring new challenges that require the reevaluation of current
information dissemination programs to take advantage of new
opportunities
and minimize disruption of public access during this period of
rapid change.
The advent of electronic dissemination has brought with it a host
of new problems and concerns unheard of, or less prevalent, in
the paperbased model of Government information dissemination.
In many cases, technology has outpaced efforts of the Government
to accommodate and adjust to its development. Several legislative
and administrative initiatives over the last decade, including
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Government Printing
Office
Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993, and the
1994 revision of OMB Circular A130, have attempted to address
and/or advance the shift in Government dissemination methods from
paper to electronic.
The U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), at the direction of
Congress, initiated a cooperative study to identify measures
necessary
for a successful transition to a more electronic Federal
Depository
Library Program (FDLP). The study began in August 1995 and
involved
representatives from the legislative, executive, and judicial
branches of the Government, as well as the depository library
community, the national library associations, the information
industry, and other appropriate Government and public entities.
In the Senate Report 104114 to accompany H.R. 1854, the
Legislative
Branch Appropriations Act of 1996, the Committee stated that:
Public access to Government information is a basic right of every
American citizen. The Committee recognizes the critically
important
service that the Government Printing Office and participating
libraries in the Federal Depository Library Program provide to
citizens throughout the country in furnishing timely, equitable
access to Government information.
While acknowledging that recent advances in technology provide
new opportunities for public access to Government information,
the report stated that without careful analysis, planning, and
a strongly coordinated effort, improvements to the FDLP would
be delayed, costly, and might compromise the public's right to
Government information. Since the increasing utilization of
electronic
technologies in support of dissemination programs by all three
branches of Government necessitates analysis, planning and a
probable
restructuring of the FDLP, the Committee directed the Public
Printer
to initiate a study that:
Examines the functions and services of the Federal Depository
Library Program;
Surveys current technological capabilities of the participating
libraries in the Federal Depository Library Program;
Surveys current and future information dissemination plans of
executive branch agencies;
Examines and suggests improvements for agency compliance of
relevant
laws, regulations, and policies regarding Government information
dissemination;
Identifies measures necessary to ensure a successful transition
to a more electronically based program;
Identifies the possible expansion of the array of Federal
information
products and services made available to participating libraries;
and,
Ensures the most cost effective program to the taxpayer.
The Senate report also directed that the study include a
strategic
plan that could assist the Congress in redefining a new and
strengthened
Federal information dissemination policy and program. That plan
is attached as Exhibit 1. The final Study Report was to be made
available to Congress by March 1996.
House Report 104212 to accompany H.R. 1854 concurred with the
Senate recommendation, and Public Law 10453 (109 Stat. 533), the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996, included the
following provision:
Sec. 210. The fiscal year 1997 budget submission of the Public
Printer to the Congress for the Government Printing Office shall
include appropriations requests and recommendations to the
Congress
that
(1) are consistent with the strategic plan included in the
technological
study performed by the Public Printer pursuant to Senate Report
104-114;
(2) assure substantial progress toward maximum use of electronic
information dissemination technologies by all departments,
agencies,
and other entities of the Government with respect to the Federal
Depository Library Program and information dissemination
generally;
and
(3) are formulated so as to require that any department, agency,
or other entity of the Government that does not make such
progress
shall bear from its own resources the cost of its information
dissemination by other than electronic means.
Appropriate sections from the House and Senate reports and from
Public Law 10453 are included in this report as Attachment A.
The provision from Section 210 of Public Law 10453 resulted in
the development and submission of the Electronic Federal
Depository
Library Program: Transition Plan, FY 1996 - FY 1998
(Transition
Plan) with the GPO FY 1997 appropriations request. Public
comments
in response to the Transition Plan led directly to the
development
of the Federal Depository Library Program: Information
Dissemination
and Access Strategic Plan, FY 1996 - FY 2001 (Strategic
Plan),
included with this report as Exhibit 1.
The FDLP Study was concluded in March 1996, and a draft report
was issued in order to provide an extended opportunity for public
comment. This document is the final report to Congress on the
FDLP Study. In order to complete the study and prepare this
report,
it was necessary to establish definitions to clarify the meaning
of several important words and phrases. These definitions are
provided on page v of this report.
II. METHODOLOGY
To implement the study, the Public Printer established a working
group consisting of representatives from GPO, appropriate
Congressional
committees, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA), the Federal Publishers Committee (FPC),
the Interagency Council on Printing and Publication Services
(ICPPS),
the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and the depository
library community. He also invited a number of organizations to
identify representatives to serve as advisors to the working
group.
A complete roster of working group members, advisors and GPO
support
staff is provided as Attachment B.
Following the initial meeting of the working group, a number of
tasks were identified to provide information and alternatives
for consideration. These tasks included:
A technical analysis by a Federallyfunded research and
development
center (FFRDC) to determine the most cost-effective way to
provide
electronic access through the FDLP;
Identification of relevant laws, regulations, and policies
regarding
Government information dissemination, and evaluation of agency
compliance in so far as they affect the FDLP;
Identification, acquisition, and evaluation of available
information
relevant to the study;
Identification of current and ongoing electronic information
dissemination
activities for the FDLP;
Evaluation of incentives for publishing agencies to migrate from
print products to electronic format;
Evaluation of current laws governing the FDLP and recommendation
of any legislative changes necessary for a successful transition
to a more electronic program;
A survey of Federal agencies to identify CDROM titles not
currently
included in the FDLP and reasons for both participation and
nonparticipation
in the program;
Case studies of specific Federal electronic dissemination
initiatives
with respect to their costs, and impact on public access to
information
through the FDLP in comparison with present methods of
dissemination;
Evaluation of issues pertaining to inclusion in electronic
formats
of materials traditionally not included in the FDLP in either
paper or microfiche; and
A review of Federal programs permitting or requiring the sale
of information to recover costs, and the effects on efforts to
assure free public access through the FDLP.
The complete task list which identifies task leaders and specific
case studies is included as Attachment C. Task force reports,
including reports for each case study, were distributed to study
participants and posted electronically to major Government
document
listservs for public comment. Task leaders reviewed the comments
received and, when appropriate, incorporated these remarks into
the final reports. The final task force reports are included as
Attachments D-1 to D-15.
At Congressional direction, the FFRDC technical analysis was
deferred
until the information gathering from the other study tasks could
be completed. The letter from the Joint Committee on Printing
denying the initial GPO request for the FFRDC analysis is
included
as Attachment D-1. Task 2, which involved identification of laws,
regulations, and policies regarding Government information
dissemination,
resulted in the compilation of more than 400 pages of statutory
text. Rather than include the complete text of this report, the
index for this compilation is included as Attachment D-2. Task
4, which identified current GPO electronic initiatives, was
accomplished
through a series of demonstrations and presentations given to
working and advisory group members; therefore, no report for this
task is included in the attachments.
III. PRINCIPLES FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
The FDLP Study brought together representatives from a variety
of organizations who share an interest in the continued
dissemination
of, and access to, Federal Government information through the
Federal Depository Library Program. Despite differing viewpoints,
agendas and responsibilities, study participants did reach
consensus
on several basic principles for Federal Government information.
Over the years, these principles have been expressed by a wide
variety of organizations many times and in many different ways.
Last year, the National Commission on Libraries and Information
Science (NCLIS) republished its principles for comment in the
June 9, 1995 issue of the Federal Register. The NCLIS
principles
are included as Attachment E. The principles below, which are
derived from the NCLIS principles, served as the underlying
foundation
for all study group discussion and activities.
Principle 1: The Public Has the Right of Access to Government
Information
A cornerstone of every democratic society is the public's right
of access to Government information. Open and uninhibited access
to Government information ensures that the public has the
opportunity
to monitor and participate in the full range of Government
activities.
As Thomas Jefferson said in 1816, "If we are to guard
against
ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every
American
to be informed." Access to Government information, except
where restricted by law, is a basic right of every American
citizen.
It should not be format dependent, nor should it be compromised
by the imposition of excessive fees, time delays or copyrightlike
restrictions imposed by the Government in a manner that hinders
timely access, use or redissemination.
Principle 2: The Government Has an Obligation to Disseminate
and Provide Broad Public Access to Its Information
The Government should not only allow public participation in the
democratic process by providing access to its information, but
should encourage public participation and use of Government
information
through proactive dissemination efforts that ensure timely and
equitable public access. This principle was the basis for the
establishment of the Federal Depository Library Program more than
a century ago. It also is supported by hundreds of other
Government
statutes which prohibit the copyright of Federal information,
mandate affirmative public dissemination of such information and
assign dissemination functions to a variety of Federal agencies
and Governmentwide clearinghouses. This responsibility
entails providing public access to Government information in such
a way that even those citizens without special equipment or
training
can find, access, and use it. This principle covers access to
both Government information products and the underlying data from
which they are created.
Principle 3: The Government Has an Obligation to Guarantee
the Authenticity and Integrity of Its Information
Government information is used in many ways, some of which affect
the continued health and livelihood of the American public. Any
corruption of Government information poses a serious and real
threat to the common good. Therefore the Government has an
obligation
to protect its citizens by guaranteeing to the maximum extent
possible the authenticity and integrity of its information. Due
to the ease in which it currently is possible to manipulate
electronic
source files, the obligation to provide
long range assurances of authenticity will become increasingly
important as more Government information moves to electronic
formats.
Principle 4: The Government Has an Obligation to Preserve Its
Information
Government information is part of our national heritage. It
documents
the fundamental rights of American citizens, the actions of
Federal
officials in all three branches of our Government, and the
characteristics
of our national experience. Therefore, it is a Government
obligation
to guarantee the
preservation of Government information for future generations
of Americans. This principle applies to Government information
that has been determined to have sufficient historical value or
that provides significant evidence of the organizations,
functions,
policies, decisions, procedures, operations or activities of the
Government. Despite changing times and technologies, public
access
to these types of Government information in a meaningful format
must be maintained in perpetuity to ensure the continued
accountability
of the Government to its present and future citizens.
Principle 5: Government Information Created or Compiled by
Government Employees or at Government Expense Should Remain in
the Public Domain
Except where exempted by law, Government information created or
compiled at Government expense or by Government employees as part
of their official duties, regardless of the format in which it
is published, is in the public domain. The Government is
precluded
by 17 U.S.C. Chapter 1 from holding copyright protection for its
published and/or unpublished works. This prohibition on copyright
should not be undermined by the Government's imposition of
copyrightlike
restrictions on the use or reuse of Government information, such
as the imposition of royalties, establishment of exclusive
distribution
arrangements, or denying timely access to underlying data.
IV. MISSION AND GOALS FOR THE FEDERAL DEPOSITORY
LIBRARY
PROGRAM
MISSION: The mission of the Federal Depository Library
Program is to provide equitable, efficient, timely and dependable
nofee public access to Federal Government information within the
scope of the program./1/
/1/ For purposes of this report, Government information is
defined
as Government
publications, or other Government information products,
regardless of
form or format,
created or compiled by Government employees, or at Government
expense, or as
required by law. The scope of the FDLP is Government information
products, except
those determined by their issuing agency to be required for
official use
only or for
strictly administrative or operational purposes which have no
public
interest or
educational value and information classified for reasons of
national
security. A more
complete list of definitions begins on page v at the front of
this report.
The Government's transition to electronic dissemination requires
improving the way the Federal Depository Library Program
operates,
redefining terms taken for granted in the printonpaper publishing
environment, finding ways to use new technologies both to sustain
and increase the amount of information in the FDLP, and exploring
new methods for the delivery of information in timely, useful
formats. However, the underlying mission of the program remains
unchanged to provide equitable, efficient, timely and dependable
nofee public access to Federal Government information products
that fall within the scope of the program. Fulfilling this
mission
in the rapidlychanging world of electronic information requires
the renewed and expanded cooperation of Federal publishers, the
Government Printing Office, depository libraries, the National
Archives and Records Administration and other organizations both
public and private that are committed to the dissemination of,
and public access to, Government information.
The goals for an electronic FDLP reaffirm the traditional
objectives
of the program with a new emphasis that reflects the increasing
amount of Government information in electronic formats.
GOAL 1: Ensure that the public has equitable, nofee,
local
public access to Government information products through a
centrally
managed, statutorily authorized network of
geographically-dispersed
depository libraries.
This includes ensuring that depository libraries provide public
access workstations and the related services necessary to connect
the public to remotely accessible Government electronic
information
services and sufficient to assure equitable access to that
information.
GOAL 2: Use new information technologies to improve
public
access to Government information and expand the array of
Government
information products and Government electronic information
services
made available through the FDLP.
This includes: (1) ensuring that Government information products
traditionally included in the FDLP in print or microform remain
available through the FDLP when converted to electronic format
by publishing agencies; (2) converting appropriate Government
information products to an electronic format when a suitable
electronic
format is not available from the publishing agency and conversion
is a costeffective means to disseminate the information to
depository
libraries; and (3) acquiring, or obtaining access for depository
libraries to, electronic Government information products which
have not been included in the FDLP in print or microform, but
which can now be costeffectively included through remotely
accessible
Government electronic information services.
GOAL 3: Provide Government information products in
formats
appropriate to the needs of users and the intended usage.
This includes establishing a reasonable number of standard
formats
for electronic information disseminated through the FDLP which
depository libraries will be responsible for supporting.
GOAL 4: Enable the public to locate Government
information
regardless of format.
This includes: (1) participation in, and utilization of, the
Government
Information Locator Service (GILS) and (2) development of other
locator services tailored specifically to the needs of the FDLP.
GOAL 5: Ensure both timely, current public access and
permanent,
future public access to Government information products at or
through depository libraries, without copyrightlike restrictions
on the use or reuse of that information.
This includes assuring to the maximum extent possible that all
Government information products within the scope of the FDLP,
regardless of market value, are available for no fee public
access
through the FDLP. Although it is recognized that private sector
publishers and other secondary disseminators of Government
information
will continue to provide high value, high interest information
products, the purpose of the FDLP is to acquire and maintain
access
to the full range of Government information products within the
scope of the program, without copyrightlike restrictions on the
use or reuse of that information.
GOAL 6: Facilitate preservation of Government
information
through the National Archives and Records Administration.
This includes the continued transfer to NARA of information
disseminated
to depository libraries by GPO, as well as the initiation of
transfer
to NARA of electronic information held by GPO for depository
library
access.
GOAL 7: Ensure that the program is costeffective for
all
parties involved, including Government publishing agencies, GPO,
depository libraries, and the public.
This includes a commitment to minimize costs to depository
libraries
as a result of changes in the FDLP in order to encourage
continued
participation in the program and thereby assure broad public
access
to Government information.
V. POLICY ISSUES THAT IMPACT PUBLISHING AGENCIES,
GPO, NARA,
DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES, THE PUBLIC, AND THE PRIVATE
SECTOR
The issues summarized below were identified during the course
of the study. Many of them are explained in greater detail, with
examples and alternative solutions, in the individual task force
reports included as Attachments D-1 to D-15.
ISSUE 1: Redefinition of Terms; Authenticity of
Information.
The electronic publishing environment necessitates new
definitions
of terms such as "Government publication" to include
"Government information product" and "Government
electronic information service", as well as new means to
identify and assure the authenticity of electronic Government
information.
A. The scope of Government information products included in the
FDLP, and the criteria for excluding information products from
the FDLP, should be reaffirmed through revision of 44 U.S.C.
§1901
and §1902. These sections should explicitly include all
formats
of Government information, including electronic information
products.
Since NARA accepts dissemination through the FDLP as one criteria
for identifying information for preservation, this also will
serve
to define a body of electronic Government information products
that should be transferred to NARA by GPO/2/ or the publishing
agencies
for preservation, notwithstanding its continued availability
through
the FDLP.
/2/ Currently GPO transfers to NARA only that information over
which it has physical
custody, i.e. information disseminated to depository libraries by
GPO
and information
maintained at GPO for remote access. GPO can and will work with
Federal publishing
agencies to assure the transfer to NARA of other information that
is
within the scope of
the FDLP, but never directly in the custody of GPO.
B. Means should be found to assure the authenticity of Government
information products in the FDLP, both for the current users and
usage and for permanent public access and preservation. This may
include the utilization of "signatures" on electronic
Government information products (files) and the
establishment of a unique and permanent name or identification
number for each file that is constant throughout its life cycle.
Authentication efforts should assure the accuracy of the
information
content without imposing barriers to use or reuse.
ISSUE 2: Changing Roles for FDLP Participants.
The focus of the FDLP is changing, with GPO providing more
electronic
access and less physical distribution, and depository libraries
providing connections to remotely accessible Government
electronic
information services, rather than building collections in their
own facilities.
A. The role of GPO, as the agency responsible for administration
of the FDLP, will include the establishment of official
arrangements
for depository library access to information available directly
from Federal agencies or other organizations, with the
appropriate
provisions for permanent access to and through the FDLP. This
will assure that GPO, and the depository libraries, can rely on
access through these distributed sources, rather than collecting
the information for a single, central computer system operated
by GPO or requiring libraries to maintain extensive local
collections
of electronic Government information products.
B. The role of depository libraries will include requirements
to serve as local providers of public access workstations and
the related services necessary to connect the public to remotely
accessible Government electronic information services. This
redefinition
will result in different types of resource and training
requirements
that the libraries will have to meet in order to assure equitable
access to Government information.
C. Means should be found to assure that publishing agencies in
all three branches of the Federal Government provide notification
to GPO, as the administrator of the FDLP, before they initiate,
substantially modify, or terminate Government information
products.
This would include notification of removal, or change of
location,
of information products on a Government electronic information
service when availability through that service is the means by
which the agency fulfills its FDLP responsibilities. The
Paperwork
Reduction Act establishes a notification requirement for
publishing
agencies in the executive branch, but it does not explicitly
identify
GPO as one of the entities that must be notified. There is no
comparable statutory requirement for notification of affected
parties for legislative and judicial branch publishers. It is
insufficient to establish the obligation; there must be means
to assure compliance if the FDLP and other affected parties are
to rely on this notification.
ISSUE 3: Permanent Access and Preservation.
The requirements for permanent access to and preservation of
electronic
Government information products necessitate a reevaluation of
the life cycle of that information. The best time to assure
preservation
of official electronic Government information is at the time it
is prepared, when the originator can certify its authenticity.
For purposes of this report, "permanent access" means
that Government information products within the scope of the FDLP
remain available for continuous, no fee public access through
the program,/3/
/3/ In the case of tangible information products, permanent
access
remains a
responsibility of regional depository libraries, while in the
case of
remotely accessible
information products, it is a responsibility of GPO to coordinate
a
distributed system that
provides continuous, permanent public access through the FDLP.
and "preservation" means that official records of the
Federal Government, which have been determined to have sufficient
historical or other value to warrant being held and maintained
in trust for future generations of Americans, are retained by
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
A. NARA and GPO should establish an official relationship to
assure
that electronic Government information products disseminated to
depository libraries by GPO, or held by GPO for depository
library
access, are transferred to NARA for preservation in formats
acceptable
to NARA./4/ Ideally, this should be done in a manner that meets
the
publishing agencies' requirements for deposit with NARA, so that
duplicative preparation and transfer of such information is
eliminated.
Currently GPO transfers to NARA only that information over which
it has physical custody, i.e. information disseminated to
depository
libraries by GPO and information maintained at GPO for remote
access.
/4/ The historical and future roles of GPO in the transfer of
Government information
products to NARA for preservation are addressed in the discussion
of
Goal 6 on page
21.
B. The requirement for permanent access at or through depository
libraries necessitates: (1) the creation of information in
formats
that resist technological obsolescence due to software or
platform
dependence; and/or (2) the migration of the information to new
media or new formats. In this context, migration means both: (1)
the periodic refreshing or transfer of Government information
products from one medium to another in order to minimize loss
of information due to physical deterioration of storage media
and (2) the reformatting of information to avoid technological
obsolescence due to software or platform dependence.
C. As the volume of electronic Government information products
increases, it is essential to collect more in-depth and concrete
data on the life cycle costs to the Government for creating,
disseminating
and preserving them, to depository libraries for providing public
access to them, and to the public for using them.
ISSUE 4: Standards.
The requirements for timely access to current Government
information
products within the scope of the FDLP, and for permanent access
to and preservation of these products, necessitate the
identification
and implementation of Government-wide standards for the creation
and dissemination of electronic Government information
products./5/
Where adequate standards do not already exist, standards must
be developed by and for the agencies that create and disseminate
the products.
/5/ The proposal for an Assessment of Standards for Creation
and
Dissemination of
Electronic Government Information is described on page 28 in the
Results and
Conclusions.
A. Broad utilization of Standard Generalized Markup Language
(SGML)
in the preparation of Government information products will
facilitate
the exchange, dissemination and preservation of that information;
however, it will take many years for this to be broadly accepted
throughout the Government.
B. GPO needs to establish a range of preferred file formats,
including
SGML, for use in the FDLP and should recommend (but not require)
that Federal publishing agencies use one of those formats when
submitting electronic Government information products to GPO for
FDLP dissemination. Whenever possible, open systems and formats
compliant with Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)
and other national or international standards should be used to
assure that the format of the information is not a barrier to
FDLP or public use. Such standardization is essential to assure
that depository libraries have the hardware, software and
training
necessary to assist the public in the utilization of information
made available through the FDLP.
C. When agencies cannot, or do not, use one of the preferred
formats,
GPO will need to convert agency supplied electronic Government
information to one of the preferred formats if that is necessary
to assure that the information product is appropriate to the
needs
of users and the intended usage. The formats utilized for FDLP
dissemination must be appropriate for the program's intended
audience,
representing a broad cross-section of the general public. If the
format utilized by the publishing agency is not suitable for
public
access through the FDLP, GPO should convert, reformat or scan
the information product for distribution through the FDLP. For
example, depository libraries cannot have available the software
for every word processor or desktop publisher used by a
Government
agency to create documents, so GPO might accept documents from
agencies in a wide variety of formats and convert them into one
or more standard formats for depository library access or
distribution.
This will not restrict creation or dissemination by Federal
agencies
in the formats which they feel best serve their needs and those
of their primary constituencies, but rather will supplement
agency
dissemination efforts by assuring availability to a wider range
of users through the FDLP.
D. Whenever possible, the standard formats utilized by the FDLP
should be platform independent and either non-proprietary or open
in order to assure the widest possible use of the information
and to avoid copyright-like restrictions resulting from software
licensing. For example, the Government is distributing a
significant
amount of information using CD-ROM. Most CD-ROM titles include
retrieval and display software, and often this software requires
formatting the information in specific ways that can only be
accessed
through that software. This imposes copyright-like restrictions
on those who want access to the underlying data and can preclude
future use due to dependency on specific computer operating
systems
or other technology that may become obsolete.
E. Where paper and microfiche are formats that do not face
technological
obsolescence, many electronic information formats are software
or platform dependent, necessitating the periodic
review and, when necessary, migration of that information to
newer
media and or alternative file formats. Creation in, and
certification
of, information in standard formats that are not technologically
dependent is the best way to assure that Government information
products remain permanently accessible through the FDLP and are
preserved by NARA.
F. The use of standards in the preparation and dissemination of
Government information products also will facilitate
incorporation
in valueadded information products from the private sector and
assure a diversity of both public and private sources for
Government
information.
ISSUE 5: Locator Services.
With the proliferation of remotely accessible Government
electronic
information services, and the necessity to link or direct
depository
libraries to those services, rather than duplicating them, the
provision
of comprehensive finding aids and indexing (locator) services
is essential. This includes full participation in and utilization
of the Government Information Locator Service (GILS), as well
as development of other locator services tailored specifically
to the needs of the FDLP.
ISSUE 6: Inclusion of Fee-Based Services in the FDLP.
The principles for Government information, and many of the laws
and policies implementing them, recognize the need for assuring
broad access to the public. The statute authorizing the FDLP
specifically
requires nofee public access; however, this requirement is often
in conflict with statutes establishing sales programs and
feebased
Government electronic information services. Purchase of access
to feebased Government information services for the FDLP is one
means to reduce this conflict. This would require the
establishment
of a basis for determining appropriate fees for depository access
and the restrictions, if any, that such services should be able
to place on access to the services. Another
alternative would be for Congress to require publishing agencies
operating under fee-based requirements to provide this
information
to the FDLP without charge. In either case, such access should
not restrict the use and reuse of information provided to the
public through the FDLP.
ISSUE 7: Avoidance of Copyright-Like Restrictions.
Government information must be available without copyrightlike
restrictions to assure broad public access and a diversity of
dissemination sources. When publishing agencies impose, or permit
others to impose, copyrightlike restrictions on information
created
or compiled by Government employees or at Government expense,
the effect is to restrict public access to that information. This
violates the intent, if not the specific provisions, of the laws
and policies precluding copyright on Federal information,
including
the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB Circular A130. Nevertheless,
budget constraints, requirements for operating costrecovery
information
services, and other factors are encouraging agencies to treat
Government information as a commodity whose economic value can
only be preserved by the imposition of such restrictions.
Excessive
fees, exclusive arrangements, royalty fees, and restrictions on
the use or reuse of Government information are examples of
copyrightlike
restrictions that must be avoided. The utilization of proprietary
data formats also may impose copyrightlike restrictions by
requiring
users to obtain software licenses in order to access or reproduce
the information.
ISSUE 8: Incentives for Agency Compliance with FDLP
Requirements.
GPO should inform publishing agencies of their obligations to
the FDLP. The Office of Management and Budget and the Congress
should assist GPO in making sure that agencies understand the
requirements for participation in the FDLP and comply with them.
GPO should have the ability to offer incentives for participation
and to assure publishing agency compliance with statutory
obligations
to the FDLP.
VI. COMPARISON OF THE HISTORICAL FDLP WITH THE
ELECTRONIC FDLP
AS ENVISIONED IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN
The Federal Depository Library Program has been in existence for
more than 150 years. The program has stood the test of time,
providing
equitable, efficient, timely and dependable nofee public access
to Federal Government information products in print and
microform,
and more recently in electronic formats. It has proven to be a
well-designed and well-balanced program, with clearly defined
roles and responsibilities for Federal agencies, GPO and the
depository
libraries. However, the advent of electronic dissemination has
introduced a host of new problems and concerns unheard of, or
less prevalent, in the printbased model of Government information
dissemination. This study is part of the process for informing
the Congress about the issues and alternatives that should be
considered for a successful transition to a more electronic FDLP.
As part of the study, a Strategic Plan was prepared to describe
the anticipated evolution of the program through FY 2001. This
plan is attached as Exhibit 1. This section of the report
provides
a comparison of the historical FDLP with the electronic FDLP as
it is envisioned in the Strategic Plan. The comparison is made
in the context of how the program has met and will meet the goals
presented in Section IV of this report.
Goal 1: Ensure that the public has equitable, nofee,
local
public access to Government information products through a
centrally
managed, statutorily authorized network of
geographically-dispersed
depository libraries.
Historical Model
For more than a century, the Federal Depository Library Program
has served the Government and its citizens by providing a
national
network of libraries through which Government information is made
available to the people of the United States, without geographic,
economic or administrative barriers. The scope of the program
as defined in 44 U.S.C. §1902 includes all
"publications
except those determined by their issuing components to be
required
for official use only or for strictly administrative or
operational
purposes which have no public interest or educational value and
publications classified for reasons of national
security."/6/
/6/ There is an additional exclusion in 44 U.S.C. §1903,
based
not on the content of
Government information products, but on their source of funding,
for
"so-called
cooperative publications which must necessarily be sold in order
to be
self-sustaining."
There are currently 1,382 depository libraries located throughout
the country, one in almost every Congressional district, as well
as in the U.S. territories and possessions. Designation of a
depository
library is made by a Senator or Member of Congress or by law.
Regardless of whether a citizen lives in a poor district in the
inner city, a wealthy suburb, or a rural area, Government
information
products are accessible to each citizen at a depository library
in the local area. Depository libraries are required by 44 U.S.C.
§1911 to make the publications distributed to them through
the FDLP" available for the free use of the general
public."
GPO delivers Government publications to depository libraries
primarily
in print and microfiche. However, an increasing number of
Government
information products are being distributed in both physical
electronic
format, such as CDROM, and through Government electronic
information
services, such as GPO Access. Although the amount and type
of information obtained through the FDLP and the type of
facilities
vary by depository, traditionally the only equipment depository
libraries needed to provide equitable public access to nonprint
Government information products was a microfiche reader or
reader/printer.
This equipment is relatively inexpensive and simple to operate,
and microfiche does not require special training or expertise
to use. In recent years, as CD-ROM discs have become a popular
medium for the dissemination of Government information, many
depository
libraries have acquired computer workstations with CD-ROM drives,
and some have even offered remote access to CD-ROM discs through
their library networks. Currently 1,140 (83.1%) depository
libraries
have CD-ROM drives available for use with their Government
information
collections./7/ A workstation equipped with a CD-ROM
/7/ This information is based on data from the 1995 Biennial
Survey
of Depository
Libraries, with all but 10 libraries responses received. A
summary of
the survey results
is available as Attachment G.
drive and a printer is more expensive than a microfiche
reader/printer
and requires additional training and expertise, particularly
given
the wide variety of software and data formats used by Federal
agencies in their CD-ROM publishing.
Although the amounts and types of equipment vary by library, the
formats currently used for dissemination do not preclude
depository
libraries from selecting the Government information products they
feel are needed to best serve their communities. Under the
traditional
FDLP model, the only major resource limitations on depository
selection of Government information products are available shelf
space (or microfiche cabinets) and support staff./8/
/8/ Selection of information products available through
Government electronic information
services is discussed in more detail under Goal 2 on page 14.
Strategic Plan
Congress has already authorized GPO to disseminate electronic
information to depository libraries through the GPO Access
legislation (44 U.S.C. §4101). Ensuring equitable public
access in an electronic dissemination environment will require
two changes to the FDLP. The first involves reaffirmation that
the scope of the program includes a comprehensive range of
publishing
formats. The current scope of the program refers to distribution
of Government "publications." The term
"publications"
implies information published in a static, physical medium.
However,
electronic information can be dynamic and changeable, and often
does not lend itself to physical dissemination. Therefore, the
Strategic Plan proposes elimination of the term
"publications"
where it is used in 44 U.S.C. §1901 and §1902 to define
the scope of the program and substitution of the more generic
term "information products." This term encompasses both
traditional products in physical formats and new electronic
information
available through Government electronic information services./9/
/9/ A more complete list of definitions begins on page v at
the front
of this report.
The second significant change will take place in the depository
libraries themselves. With the amount and type of electronic
information
in the program growing rapidly, it will be incumbent upon
depository
libraries to expand their capabilities at a local level for
public
access to remotely accessible Government electronic information
services. Despite the increasing amount of Government information
available for free public use on the Internet, studies have shown
that a significant majority of Americans still lack the necessary
equipment, skills, or Internet connections to access remote
Government
electronic information services. A recent Nielsen survey found
that only 17 percent of the public has access to the Internet,
whether at home, in the classroom, at the office or through a
friend's computer./10/ In addition, the complexity of the
distributed
information environment has created new problems for the public,
eroding the ability of even experienced users to locate the
information
they need. Depository libraries located in most Congressional
districts can meet the needs of this large segment of the
American
public which has not yet acquired the equipment or expertise
necessary
to locate and access Government information directly from their
home, classroom, or office.
/10/ The CommerceNet/Nielsen Internet Demographics Survey.
[New York]:
CommerceNet Consortium/Nielsen Media Research, 1995. [URL:
http://www.commerce.net/information/surveys/]
The Strategic Plan recognizes that in order to provide equitable
public access to Government information in an electronic
environment,
depository libraries will have to accelerate their plans to
obtain
public access computer workstations, and satisfy the demand for
local printing and downloading. According to the 1995 Biennial
Survey, only 32 percent of responding depositories currently
provide
the kind of robust workstation configuration necessary to provide
equitable public access to Government information through the
Internet./11/
/11/ More detailed information from the Biennial Survey is
available as Attachment G.
The Strategic Plan recognizes that in a more electronic FDLP,
all depository libraries will have to provide at least one public
access workstation with a graphical user interface, CDROM
capabilities,
Internet connections and the ability to access, download, and
print extensive products. In addition to hardware and software,
depositories will need to provide assistance to patrons in the
use of electronic Government information products which employ
a variety of search engines, user interfaces, and software
packages.
These requirements are defined in the Recommended Minimum
Specifications
for Public Access Workstations in Federal Depository Libraries,
which are scheduled to become requirements effective October 1,
1996, and are provided as Attachment H. Acquiring this technical
expertise and providing user support for electronic depository
collections will require additional depository training and
support
staff. As a result, depository libraries will have to balance
the resource requirements necessary to support electronic
information
products with those necessary to provide access to the Government
information products in their print and microfiche collections.
The Strategic Plan also suggests that, in the transition of the
FDLP from a series of local repositories to a network of local
access points, many depositories may find that they lack the
necessary
public or private funding to achieve the minimal level of
electronic
capability they will need. The plan proposes that GPO provide
up to $25,000 per library in technology grants to those
depositories
that demonstrate need and stipulate that no other public or
private
funding source is available for this purpose.
These would be one-time grants, available for a single year and
totalling no more than $500,000 per year. In addition, the
Strategic
Plan envisions an expanded role for GPO in providing support
services
to depositories including, but not limited to, locator services,
user support, training, and documentation.
Goal 2: Use new information technologies to improve
public
access to Government information and expand the array of
Government
information products and Government electronic information
services
made available through the FDLP.
Historical Model
As the primary provider of printing services for the Government,
GPO is able to identify and acquire information for the FDLP when
publishing agencies submit printing requisitions to GPO in the
course of printing or contracting for the printing of their
publications.
The number of copies needed for depository distribution is added
to the agency's printing requisition as a "rider."
Therefore,
GPO's integral role in the production process has ensured that
publications are identified and acquired for the FDLP, without
agencies having to be aware of their obligations to the program.
With the vast amount of Government information products flowing
through the GPO print production process, and thereby being
acquired
for the FDLP, expanding the array of Government information
products
available for public access was never a primary concern for the
program.
In the historical model for the FDLP, paper was the primary
format
used for dissemination of Government information. Advances in
printing technology over the years have changed the production
process for Government publications, but they have not changed
the way in which Government information products are distributed
or made available to the public through depository libraries.
Before the advent of electronic dissemination, the only
technology
that significantly impacted FDLP dissemination was micrographics.
The FDLP began using microfiche as a format for dissemination
in the early 1970's. The use of micrographics allowed GPO to
distribute
a slightly greater amount of material to depositories at a
significantly
lower cost to the Government. No major changes to the FDLP
distribution
system were needed because microfiche was a physical format.
Depository
libraries purchased microfiche readers or reader/printers in
order
to provide public access to microfiche information./12/
Depository
library patrons could access the exact graphical image of a
printed
publication simply by placing a sheet of microfiche in the
microfiche
reader; therefore no special training or user support was needed
to use information in this format.
/12/ While comparable in cost to public access workstations
acquired for the CD-ROM
titles and other electronic Government information products, the
microfiche equipment
has a much longer useful life.
Due to the vast quantity of Government information products
disseminated
through the program, and the physical limitations of depository
libraries for storing print and microfiche, the historical model
for the FDLP necessitated a distinction between
"selective"
depository libraries and "regional" depository
libraries.
Selective depositories preselect the type of publications they
wish to receive based on the specific needs and interests of the
communities they serve. Fiftythree "regional"
depository
libraries receive everything that is distributed through the
program.
If users do not find the information they need at a selective
depository library, they can arrange for an interlibrary loan
from another depository that does elect to receive that
information
or from a regional library. While this is not as timely as on
demand access from an electronic information service, the delay
is not so lengthy that it significantly impedes public access.
Government information products in paper or microfiche are
available
at depository libraries for onsite use by members of the public.
Users can borrow material to read at home, in the classroom, or
in the office, or they may elect to pay to copy or print it out
in order have their own copy. When Government CD-ROM titles were
included in the FDLP, depository libraries began to add public
access workstations equipped with CD-ROM drives. Since the
initiation
of the GPO Access electronic information services,
authorized
by 44 U.S.C. §4101, the public has had free use of a variety
of databases through public access workstations equipped for
Internet
access. This was quickly expanded to offer users the option of
access from their home, classroom or office through one of
several
depository library gateways or direct access from GPO.
Strategic Plan
The electronic Federal Depository Library Program as outlined
in the Strategic Plan will take advantage of the increasing
amount
of Government information available in electronic format to
expand
and enhance the array of Government information products
available
to the public. An increasing amount of Government information
is available from agency publishers in electronic formats. This
information falls into three categories: (1) information products
that are currently included in the FDLP in print, but not in
electronic
formats, (2) information products that previously were included
in the FDLP in print, but that are no longer included in the
program
since the publishing agency converted to electronic information
products, and (3) information products that have never been a
part of the program for various operational or financial reasons.
Often this information is more timely, useful, and less expensive
in electronic format than it is in print.
The Strategic Plan proposes four ways in which GPO can bring
these
electronic information products into the FDLP:
- - GPO can identify, describe and link the public to the
wealth
of distributed Government information products maintained at
Government
electronic information services for free public use.
- - GPO can establish reimbursable agreements with agencies
that
provide feebased Government electronic information services in
order to provide free public access to their information through
the FDLP.
- - GPO can "ride" agency requisitions and pay for
depository
copies of tangible electronic information products, such as
CD-ROM
discs, even if they are not produced or procured through GPO.
- - GPO can obtain from agencies electronic source files for
information
the agencies do not wish to disseminate through their own
Government
electronic information services. These files can be made
available
through the GPO Access services or disseminated to
depository
libraries in CD-ROM or other tangible format.
GPO's ability to provide timely and comprehensive access to
Government
electronic information products will be dependent on the receipt
of timely notification from publishing agencies when they
initiate, substantially modify, or terminate an information
product.
Both the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB Circular A130 require
executive agencies to provide such notice to affected
parties.
The proposed revisions to 44 U.S.C. §1902 presented in the
report for Task 6 (Attachment D-5) establish a specific
requirement
for notification of GPO by all branches of Government. The
proposal
suggests the following language:
Agencies shall notify the Superintendent of Documents of their
intent to initiate any Government information product and shall
notify the Superintendent of Documents at such time as they
substantially
modify or terminate a product available via a Government
electronic
information service.
The task force report also proposes an addition to 44 U.S.C.
Chapter
19 that would require agencies to provide the Superintendent of
Documents
with timely notice of any tangible electronic information product
produced
or procured outside of GPO, so that the Superintendent of
Documents
can make
arrangements to ride the agency requisition for depository copies
on an incremental cost basis.
Several benefits will be realized from the inclusion of more
electronic
information in the FDLP. When mounted to an online service,
electronic
information can be accessed simultaneously from multiple sites
located across the country within minutes of its creation. This
means that Government information products like agency press
releases
can be made accessible at or through depository libraries when
public interest in the information is at its peak, whereas
previously
weeks would pass before the printed press releases arrived in
a depository shipment.
Another major benefit of electronic information is the ease in
which it can be manipulated and searched. Unlike paper or
microfiche,
electronic information is dynamic. For example, locating agency
regulations on toxic waste management published in the paper
Federal
Register required a user to scan through indices and pages
of text manually. This was a very timeconsuming and
labor-intensive
process. The same search on the electronic Federal Register
database can be done in seconds with a simple search that
locates and ranks all references to toxic waste management in
the Federal Register over a specified period of time.
After
viewing relevant passages on the screen, the user can
"paste"
those passages of text into word processing software, download
and save the entire file for use at a later time, or print out
selected pages.
Use of information technology not only will enhance public access
to Government information by improving its timeliness and utility
to the user, but will make access to certain types of Government
information more widely available. Currently, shelf and cabinet
space restrict the amount and type of print and microfiche
materials
depository libraries select. As more information is included in
the FDLP through access to Government electronic information
services,
depository libraries will be able to access a wider range of
Government
information products because the responsibility for providing
access to the information will rest increasingly with publishing
agencies and GPO, instead of with each individual library./13/
/13/ This does not mean that all of the information products
provided to GPO by
agencies will be maintained at GPO. Some Government information
products will be in
facilities, such as depository libraries, that establish
contractual
arrangements with GPO
to house the information for depository library access. These
alternatives are
discussed more fully under Goal 5.
The Strategic Plan notes that in FY 1997 depository libraries
will be required to meet minimum specifications for public access
workstations which include capabilities for accessing Government
electronic information services./14/ This will mean that the full
range of Government information products remotely accessible
through
the FDLP will be available for public use at or through any
depository
library within the next year. In addition, users who have the
necessary hardware, software and expertise will continue to
access
an expanding array of electronic information available through
the FDLP directly from their home, classroom or office using
depository
library gateways or by connecting to GPO electronic information
services directly.
/14/ The current requirements are provided in Attachment H:
Recommended Minimum
Specifications for Public Access Workstations in Federal
Depository
Libraries. These
specifications are revised periodically to reflect changes in
computer
technology and
software.
While every depository library will be able to access all of the
available remotely accessible Government electronic information
services, each library will continue to determine the appropriate
levels of service for the various types of information. For
example,
a depository library in a law school will have public access
workstations
that can be used to access remote scientific and technical
information,
but it is not likely to offer any reference service to support
the use of that information since it is outside of the scope of
its collection and expertise. On the other hand, a law library
may offer substantially better assistance for legal and
regulatory
materials than a public library that has limited experience with
this type of information.
GOAL 3: Provide Government information products in
formats
appropriate to the needs of users and the intended usage.
Historical Model
The historical model for the FDLP involved dissemination of
information
primarily in two physical, static formats: paper and microfiche.
GPO also has distributed a substantial number of CD-ROM titles
to depository libraries, and a limited number of videos, slides,
and floppy diskettes. The CD-ROM discs have conformed to the
international
standards for CD-ROM media and file layout, but have presented
a challenge to the libraries due to the wide range of retrieval
software and file formats on the discs. Depository libraries have
had access to electronic files in a variety of formats on the
Federal Bulletin Board since 1992, including ASCII text, various
word processing files, dBase databases, Lotus 123 spreadsheets,
PostScript files, and Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format
(PDF)
files. GPO Access began providing depository libraries
with online databases in 1994, offering the Congressional
Record,
the Federal Register, the Congressional Record
Index
and Congressional Bills. There are now more than 65
databases
available online via GPO Access. All of the databases from
GPO Access are available as ASCII text files. ASCII files
with a print equivalent are also available as PDF files, with
graphics imbedded. For databases without a print equivalent,
graphics
are provided as individual Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) files,
and the ASCII text files contain notations to identify each
graphic.
Under the historical model for the FDLP, the availability of
electronic
information has been used to supplement, but not replace,
dissemination
of the same information in paper or microfiche. Therefore, while
the Federal Bulletin Board and GPO Access online service
are heavily used by depository libraries, 52% of depository
libraries
have not yet registered for the Federal Bulletin Board and 40%
indicated that they do not yet offer GPO Access online
databases./15/ The paper and microfiche versions of the
Federal
Register and Congressional Record continue to be
selected
by more than 1,000 depository libraries.
/15/ This information is based on data from the 1995 Biennial
Survey of Depository
Libraries, with responses received from all but 10 libraries. A
summary
of the survey
results is available as Attachment G.
The assessment of user needs and the intended usage of Government
information products is essential if GPO is to provide the
information
in formats that can be utilized by the public at or through
depository
libraries. This is not a new goal, but rather the adaptation of
long-standing practices for electronic information dissemination.
For example, GPO has established criteria that control when a
paper document can, or cannot, be converted to microfiche. If
the intended use is "ready reference" then it may need
to remain in print; if it contains fourcolor graphics that cannot
be reproduced in microfiche without loss of content, then it
remains
in print. Similarly, the GPO Access legislation requires
GPO to create electronic information services, and that clearly
includes designing databases. GPO Access has certain
capabilities,
and GPO has established certain "standard" ways of
displaying
and tagging information. Within those constraints, GPO designs
its databases in consultation and cooperation with the publishing
agencies. However, the FDLP is the primary customer for GPO
Access, and that requires GPO to consider depository needs,
as well as agency preferences, when selecting and designing
databases.
Strategic Plan
In the future, Federal agencies will continue to have a number
of publishing alternatives available for their needs, and many
Government information products will continue to be printed.
However,
it is expected that electronic formats will become the Federal
publishing media of choice, and virtually every printed
publication
will have an electronic counterpart. Unfortunately, at present
no Governmentwide standard formats have been established for
electronic
information, although GPO currently uses a few
"preferred"
formats for electronic source files, including ASCII, dBase, PDF,
PostScript and Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML). The
Strategic Plan suggests that the identification of standard
formats
be determined through an assessment of standards for creation
and dissemination of electronic Government information
products./16/
The assessment would be a joint project between GPO and NCLIS.
/16/ This assessment replaces the Technical Implementation
Assistance proposed in the
draft FDLP Study Report. The assessment is described in more
detail on
page 26 in the
section on Results and Conclusions.
Following successful completion of the assessment, GPO will make
every reasonable effort to provide meaningful public access to
Government electronic information by converting, repackaging or
scanning agency-produced information products for distribution
or access through the FDLP in one of the standard formats
identified
by the assessment as being useful and cost-effective. This will
not restrict Federal agencies from creating or disseminating
information
in any format that suits their own needs and mission, but rather,
will supplement existing agency dissemination efforts (often
tailored
to the needs of specific constituencies) and assure broad public
access. Regardless of which formats ultimately are utilized, GPO
will continue to provide a textonly interface for its online
databases
in order to maintain compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities
Act (ADA) and to assure access to users with limited
technological
and communication capability. As of December 1995, 40% of the
use of the GPO Access databases was through the Simple
WAIS (SWAIS) text-based interface. While this percentage is
declining,
there is still a substantial requirement for this type of access.
GOAL 4: Enable the public to locate Government
information
regardless of format.
Historical Model
Historically, GPO has facilitated the identification and location
of Government information through its Cataloging and Indexing
Program (CIP). This program is authorized by 44 U.S.C. §1710
and §1711. GPO's statutory mission is to provide
bibliographic
control for all Government documents. GPO fulfills this mission
by preparing, publishing, and distributing the Monthly Catalog
of U.S. Government Publications (Monthly Catalog) and
a comprehensive index of public documents at the close of each
regular session of
Congress. A complete and authoritative description for each
Government
information product is prepared by GPO in accordance with
nationally
accepted cataloging standards and practices. The Monthly
Catalog
and other finding aids are used by depository librarians to help
the public identify Government information.
Electronic access to the Monthly Catalog has been
available
through the GPO Web site since June 1995. Records in the
Monthly
Catalog database are linked to depository item selection,
so a user can identify a Government information product in the
database and then locate nearby depository libraries that have
that product available for public use. This is part of GPO's
implementation
of the requirement for an electronic directory, or locator
service,
under the GPO Access legislation (44 U.S.C. §4101).
GPO has been cataloging Federal CD-ROM titles for inclusion in
the Monthly Catalog for several years. Recently titles
on Government electronic information services also have been
included
in the CIP. GPO continues to be an active participant in the
Government
Information Locator Service (GILS) initiative, serving in the
GILS advisory group and acting as the host for the GILS records
of approximately 25 agencies.
Strategic Plan
The Strategic Plan recognizes that meaningful public access will
be possible only if GPO continues to develop appropriate finding
aids to assist depository libraries and the public in identifying
information available from the Government, regardless of its
format
or location. Therefore, the plan proposes that GPO accelerate
development of Pathway locator services (Pathway). These services
will use advanced indexing, search, and retrieval tools to
identify,
describe, and link users to electronic Government information,
whether it is held by GPO or at other sites. Pathway will be
developed
using open systems standards and will be compatible with
complementary
initiatives such as the GILS.
GPO intends to provide records in machine-readable cataloging
(MARC) format, following the Anglo-American Cataloging
Rules,
2nd Edition (AACR2), for all appropriate Government information
products, whether in physical format or available through
Government
electronic information services. GPO cataloging will continue
to emphasize information products which are not brought under
bibliographic control by another Government agency. GPO
cataloging
records that include references to electronic information
products
available from Government Internet sites will include the Uniform
Resource Locator (URL). The URL will be displayed in the
Monthly
Catalog records at the GPO Web site, and will be "hot
linked" to the actual electronic content.
GOAL 5: Ensure both timely, current public access and
permanent,
future public access to Government information products at or
through depository libraries, without copyrightlike restrictions
on the use or reuse of that information.
Historical Model
For more than a century, information delivery through the FDLP
has been a linear model: a chain beginning with the publishing
agency, linking through GPO and the depository libraries and
ultimately
reaching the public. Responsibility for public access in the
historical
model correlates directly to the actual
creation, transfer and possession of physical information
products.
Publishing agencies are responsible for the collection of data
and the creation of information products. GPO acquires the
information
through the print production process, determines independently
of the publishing agency whether to distribute the information
in paper or microfiche, and ships authentic Government
publications
to depository libraries. Depository libraries assume custody of
the information upon receipt and then are responsible for
processing
and storing the Government publications for nofee public access,
use, and reuse without copyright restrictions.
As required by law, selective depository libraries hold the
information
they receive for at least five years. Fiftythree regional
depository
libraries hold all Government publications distributed to them
through the FDLP, except superseded publications or those issued
later in bound form, in perpetuity./17/ This means that
Government
information products published today will be available for the
researcher, scholar, or student a hundred years from now, just
as documents dating back to the Civil War are available to the
public through depository libraries today. Government information
products available through the FDLP are free from copyright and
can be used or redisseminated by the public as it so chooses.
/17/ Permanent access is required by 44 U.S.C. §1911:
"Depository libraries not served
by a regional depository library, or that are regional depository
libraries
themselves,
shall retain Government publications permanently in either
printed
form or in
microfacsimile form, except superseded publications or those
issued
later in bound form
which may be discarded as authorized by the Superintendent of
Documents."
Strategic Plan
The Strategic Plan proposes a new FDLP model that allows the
traditional
partners in the program to interact in new ways and which defines
the various partners in the process by the services they provide
rather than by the actions they perform. Publishing agencies,
GPO, and depository libraries will be expected both to perform
their current functions and assume new responsibilities that were
previously the sole province of one of the other partners in the
FDLP model.
Agencies will remain responsible for the collection of data and
the creation of information products. According to the Strategic
Plan, the next step in the process will involve proactive
negotiation
and coordination between GPO and the issuing agencies regarding
appropriate formats for immediate and permanent public access
and custody of the information./18/ The issuing agency will
determine
the format used in the dissemination of the information for their
own purposes and for dissemination to depository libraries when
depository access is provided directly through the agency's own
site. When agencies choose to transfer their electronic
information
to GPO for the FDLP, GPO will determine the most appropriate
format
for dissemination or access, as authorized under 44 U.S.C.
§1914,
which says that GPO can determine the "measures [it]
considers
necessary for the economical and practical implementation of [the
Federal Depository Library Program]."
/18/ For purposes of this report, permanent access means that
Government information
products within the scope of the FDLP remain available for
continuous,
no fee public
access through the program.
Previously these measures were limited by the number of formats
available for dissemination. However, information technology now
provides GPO with a wide range of dissemination options, many
of which will cast GPO in the roles of disseminating agent and
"publisher"
of Government information products. For example, an agency might
issue weekly press releases through its own Internet site. At
the end of each year it might remove these releases from the
agency
site and pass them to GPO for permanent access through the FDLP.
Instead of remounting the releases to the Internet through GPO
Access, GPO may decide it is more economical to pack and
publish
the press releases on a CDROM for distribution to depository
libraries.
In this context, although the agency is still responsible for
the information content, GPO acts as the publisher of a
Government
information product through its creation and production of this
annual compilation.
In the historical model, information products would move forward
through distribution channels to the point of access, depository
libraries, where they would ultimately reside for both immediate
and permanent public access. In the new FDLP model, forward
movement
of information products can stop at any one of the points in the
dissemination process: the point of creation (the issuing
agency),
the point of coordination (GPO), or the point of local access
(depository library). Nor will Government information products
always reside at the same location both for immediate and
permanent
access. Some agencies may decide to fulfill their obligations
for public and depository access through their own electronic
information services for the short term, only to pass
responsibility
for the information on to GPO for permanent access through the
FDLP. Under other partnering arrangements, depository libraries
may accept responsibility for permanent public access to some
types of Government information products. The party that retains
physical custody of the information for on demand depository
access
will be responsible for the information's authenticity, storage
and maintenance. Using GPO sponsored finding aids, depository
libraries will have to assist members of the public in
determining
at which point(s) in the new FDLP model the Government
information
product relevant to their needs resides, whether it was published
ten days or ten years ago.
As with the historical model, any Government information product
provided to the public under the auspices of the FDLP will remain
free of copyright or copyright-like restrictions, regardless of
its format or physical location. For example, the report on Task
9 (Attachment D-11) describes one alternative by which GPO would
negotiate an agreement to purchase access for depository
libraries
when agency information is available electronically for a fee.
The alternative states that "the agreement may include
limitations
on numbers of users or on remote access via library networks,
but will not include any copyright-like restrictions on the use
or reuse of the information." Unfortunately, there are
instances
when copyright-like restrictions cannot be avoided. For example,
many of the CD-ROM titles distributed to the depository libraries
include retrieval and display software that format the
information
in specific ways that can only be accessed through that software.
This imposes copyright-like restrictions on those who want access
to the underlying data and can preclude future use due to
dependency
on specific computer operating systems or other technology that
may become obsolete. GPO will not refuse to accept such CD-ROM
titles for depository distribution, but GPO will continue to work
with publishing agencies to encourage publication in a manner
that avoids copyright-like restrictions.
GOAL 6: Facilitate preservation of Government
information
through the National Archives and Records Administration.
Historical Model
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is the
repository for the preservation of the Government's permanent
records. These are records that have been appraised by NARA as
having sufficient historical or other value to warrant continued
preservation beyond the time they are needed for administrative,
legal, or fiscal purposes./19/ No more than 5 percent of the
records
created by the Federal Government fall into this very select
category,
but this has traditionally included all formal publications of
Federal agencies.
/19/ For purposes of this report, preservation means that
official
records of the Federal
Government, including Government information products made
available through the
FDLP, which have been determined to have sufficient historical or
other
value to
warrant being held and maintained in trust for future generations
of
Americans, are
retained by the National Archives and Records Administration.
In addition to any agency transfer of publications, NARA accepts
for deposit from GPO one copy of every publication cataloged
through
the Cataloging and Indexing Program and/or distributed by GPO
through the Federal Depository Library Program. GPO transfers
a full collection to NARA after the completion of each fouryear
Presidential term. These procedures have resulted in the granting
of preservation status within NARA to all Government information
products in the CIP or FDLP as part of the definitive official
collection of U. S. Government publications. At present this
status
is extended to all paper and microfiche publications and to all
electronic products that are in formats acceptable to NARA for
archival purposes (36 CFR 1228.188). Recently NARA has begun to
accept for reference purposes only, without accessioning for
preservation,
CD-ROM discs and other electronic products that are software
dependent
and, therefore, not in archival format./20/
/20/ NARA accepts such materials for reference purposes only
and
maintains them for
public use so long as the technology and software permit.
However,
NARA does not
take extraordinary measures to ensure long-term access or
preservation
of the content,
and such a transfer does not meet the publishing agency's
obligation for
transfer of the
information to NARA for preservation.
Strategic Plan
GPO will continue to transfer to NARA a collection of the
information
it disseminates to depository libraries or holds for depository
library access. Whenever possible, electronic information will
be transferred to NARA in formats acceptable for archival
purposes.
When that is not possible, GPO will continue to provide NARA with
copies for reference purposes. Ideally, legislative or regulatory
changes could be made so that transfers from GPO to NARA in
suitable
archival formats can be recognized as meeting publishing
agencies'
archival requirements with respect to NARA. This would eliminate
duplicative preparation, transfer and accessioning of such
information.
Transfer of depository material to NARA will not preclude
continued
maintenance of the information by, or under the authority of,
GPO for permanent access through the FDLP.
GOAL 7: Ensure that the program is costeffective for
all
parties involved, including Government publishing agencies, GPO,
depository libraries, and the public.
Historical Model
The FDLP exemplifies how a Federal program can provide an
essential
public service with a modest investment that is returned many
fold by the participation of partners in the communities that
benefit from the service. In this instance, the partner libraries
share the responsibilities and the costs to assure broad public
access to Government information products in their local
communities.
In the traditional FDLP model, there are a variety of costs
associated
with providing public access to Government information products.
The Government bears only a small portion of these costs when
it pays for the printing, distribution, and cataloging of
publications
and information products to depository
libraries. The division of production costs for depository copies
of Government print publications is clearly defined in 44 U.S.C.
§1903. It states that:
The cost of printing and binding those publications distributed
to depository libraries obtained elsewhere than from the
Government
Printing Office, shall be borne by components of the Government
responsible for their issuance; those requisitioned from the
Government
Printing Office shall be charged to appropriations provided the
Superintendent of Documents for that purpose.
The division of production costs for electronic information
products
are not specifically addressed in 44 U.S.C. Chapter 19 because
these costs are not associated with "printing and
binding."
However, GPO handles the replication of CD-ROM discs, and the
payment for software licenses associated with CD-ROM titles, in
a manner consistent with this provision.
Most of the material distributed to depository libraries in print
and microfiche is produced or procured by Federal agencies
through
GPO. The centralized production and distribution of depository
materials through GPO offers significant economies of scale. For
example, in FY 1995 GPO distributed
more than 16.7 million copies of 44,734 different titles, at an
average cost of $1.36 per copy. Centralized funding of the FDLP
also facilitates Congressional oversight of the program, thereby
deterring misuse or mismanagement of appropriated funds.
Depository libraries, composed of both public and private
institutions,
bear the bulk of the costs for public access to Government
information.
They supply the funds for the processing, use, storage and
housing
of depository information products. This includes providing
support
staff, facilities, equipment, and telecommunications. Depository
libraries typically spend three to five times the dollar value
of the Government information products they receive in support
of public access to their depository collections./21/
/21/ Robert E. Dugan and Ellen M. Dodsworth, "Costing Out
a
Depository Library: What
Free Government Information?" Government Information
Quarterly, Volume 11,
Number 3 (1994), pages 261-284.
Strategic Plan
GPO and other study participants have noted that there is a need
for more in-depth and concrete data on the life cycle costs to
the Government for creating, disseminating and providing
permanent
access to its information products, to depository libraries for
providing public access to them, and to the public for using
them.
However, the transition to electronic dissemination of Government
information is still in its early stages, so it is doubtful that
reliable and conclusive data on life cycle costs could be
gathered
in this rapidly-evolving period. Nevertheless, the assessment
of standards proposed in this report is an essential first step
toward the ultimate goal of collecting and analyzing information
life cycle costs. It will provide a basis for further
consultation
with the library community and for discussions with publishing
agencies concerning the appropriate standards for cost-effective
dissemination of Government information products in formats
appropriate
to the needs of users and the intended usage.
There is no doubt that the transition to electronic dissemination
of Government information products changes the costs associated
with the administration of, and participation in, the FDLP. Based
on the limited data that currently is available concerning life
cycle costs, the Strategic Plan outlines a new direction for the
program that looks to balance dissemination based on paper and
microform with that based on electronic information products,
while seeking to maintain a reasonable distribution of costs
among
publishing agencies, the Government Printing Office, depository
libraries and the public.
In some instances, the transition to electronic dissemination
will provide savings for one of these parties at the price of
incurring new costs for another, thus shifting costs between the
parties involved rather than reducing costs overall. One example
of this shift is the costs associated with providing permanent
access to electronic Government information products for public
use. In the historical model, the primary cost incurred by
regional
depository libraries for permanent access to print publications
was providing adequate storage space. In the electronic
environment,
information can be stored more easily and costeffectively on a
computer. However, unlike physical print products that remain
relatively stable over long periods of time, electronic
information
must be migrated to new and different media to prevent
deterioration,
avoid technological obsolescence, and assure information
integrity
and quality.
This migration requires significant financial resources which,
according to the Strategic Plan, are costs for ensuring permanent
public access to Government information products that the
Government
Printing Office and Federal publishing agencies, as well as those
depository libraries that choose to act as their partners, will
share./22/ Costs for migration can be minimized by the adoption
and
use of open systems standards through the entire life cycle of
information productsfrom the time the original source files are
created by the publishing agencies to final preservation by NARA.
At the same time, depository libraries and their users will have
to pay to print, or purchase printed copies of, information that
is needed in print, but no longer disseminated in that format
through the FDLP.
/22/ For purposes of this report, migration means both: (1)
the
periodic refreshing or
transfer of Government information products from one medium to
another in order to
minimize loss of information due to physical deterioration of
storage
media and (2) the
reformatting of information to avoid technological obsolescence
due to
software or
platform dependence.
The Strategic Plan proposes retention of the current level of
FDLP funding through the GPO Salaries and Expenses (S&E)
appropriation.
According to the plan, with adequate agency notification, GPO
will continue to "ride" and pay for depository copies
for tangible electronic information products, whether or not they
are produced or procured through GPO. In addition, Task 9
(Attachment
D-11), Task 10A (Attachment D-14) and Task 10B (Attachment D-15)
all discuss alternatives through which GPO would purchase access
to agency electronic information services when an agency is
required
by law to recover costs for such services. In such scenarios,
there will be no copyright-like restrictions on the use or reuse
of the information content, but gateway access to the feebased
information services through depository libraries may be
restricted
or prohibited in order to safeguard the publishing agencies'
ability
to recover operating costs. Publishing agencies also will be able
to transfer to GPO information for which they can no longer
support
public access on their own electronic information services. GPO
will pay to mount, convert and maintain this information on
GPO
Access for permanent public access or to convert it to CD-ROM
or another tangible format for distribution to depository
libraries.
GPO also may establish
partnerships with depository libraries to retain and provide
permanent
public access to certain types of information. This range of
funding
options will make electronic dissemination through the FDLP
costeffective
for publishing agencies.
GPO will realize savings from a reduction in printing and
distribution
costs associated with the paper and microfiche versions of
products
it makes available electronically through the FDLP. Funding
estimates
for the next three to five years indicate that these savings will
be sufficient to cover most of the costs for the transition to
a more electronic FDLP. Although no one can accurately project
today the long-term costs for maintaining permanent access to
the electronic information through the FDLP, the assumption
remains
that new technology will provide more efficient and effective
means to disseminate and access this information in the future.
The report on Task 10B (Attachment D-15) provides one example
of savings that can be projected for the next few years.
Providing
access to MEDLINE and eliminating paper distribution of just
three
NLM products to depository libraries could result in annual
savings
to GPO of more than $338,000, less whatever amount would be paid
to NLM for depository access. Similarly, if GPO eliminated paper
distribution of the Congressional Serial Set to selective
depository
libraries and replaced it with a quarterly CDROM as discussed
in the report on Task 8B (Attachment D-8), the agency could
realize
cost savings of more than $1 million. However, a CD-ROM version
of the Serial Set is feasible only if Congress requires that the
component Documents and Reports that are not typeset at GPO be
provided to GPO in usable electronic format. Currently up to 80%
of the documents and 20% of reports are received by GPO as camera
copy. Scanned images created from the camera copy are not
consistently
searchable and create large files with low resolution quality.
There is no conclusive data at this time to support the assertion
that electronic dissemination will always save the Government
money. As shown in the report on Task 8A (Attachment D-7), there
will be times when the cost to the Government for providing
permanent
public access to electronic Government information products
exceeds
the onetime costs associated with producing and distributing the
same information in print or microform. However, as explained
above, there are many instances when dissemination is more
costeffective
in electronic format than in paper or microfiche, and even more
instances where the information is more timely and/or more
useful.
The more electronic FDLP as proposed in the Strategic Plan will
seek to identify and cultivate those instances when information
technology can be used to save the Government money and to
enhance
and expand public access.
Depository libraries will realize cost savings through the
reduction
in the number of Government information products that they must
house and maintain. For example, whereas depository libraries
once had to have several shelves of space for the United States
Code in print, this same information now is available on a single
CDROM or online from GPO Access. However, depository
libraries
will incur new costs for ongoing acquisition and upgrade of
software
and computer systems, specialized training for staff, and
connections
to telecommunications networks./23/
/23/ While the initial costs for a well-equipped public access
workstation are comparable
to those for a microfiche reader/printer, the personal computer
technology is changing
rapidly, forcing frequent replacement or upgrading of equipment
and
software.
The Strategic Plan suggests several ways in which GPO can ease
the financial burden of the transition on depository libraries.
One of these is the establishment and promotion of a limited
range
of standard formats for FDLP use. This will minimize the costs
to depository libraries by reducing the range of platforms and
software that the libraries must acquire and support. An
assessment
to determine appropriate and cost-effective standards for the
creation and dissemination of Government information products
will be accomplished through a joint project involving GPO and
NCLIS. The Strategic Plan also proposes that GPO provide $500,000
in assistance to financially needy depository libraries through
onetime technology grants of up to $25,000 per library in FY
1997.
In addition, the Strategic Plan proposes in FY 1997 an increase
of $20,000 in the statutory limit on Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation
(S&E) travel and reallocation of a substantial portion of
the funds currently used for library inspections in order for
GPO to devote additional resources for training and continuing
education opportunities for depository librarians.
GPO will continue to monitor the technological capabilities of
the depository libraries to provide cost-effective public access
to electronic Government information products, particularly as
it relates to standards utilized by agencies in the creation and
dissemination of electronic Government information products. This
will include gathering information about the costs of equipment,
telecommunications, software, staff training and other depository
library expenses for accessing and utilizing electronic
Government
information products through the FDLP.
Users can browse Government information products in any
depository
library without charge and, in some libraries, users can check
out books or CD-ROM titles for short term use at home, in the
classroom, or in the office./24/ Currently most users must pay to
photocopy documents in depository libraries or to print images
from microfiche if they wish to obtain their own copies of
Government
information products. Electronic Government information products
may increase the costs to users as fewer items are available for
reading in the library without the necessity of paying to print
the information first or to obtain diskettes on which to download
and save electronic information for later use. Limitations on
the time that an individual user can spend at a public access
workstation are common and restrict the user's ability to browse
Government information products at the computer terminal. These
limitations, and delays when a workstation is not available, cost
users both time and money. For this reason, GPO also will begin
to monitor the costs to users for printing, downloading and
similar
services using depository library equipment.
/24/ Loan policies vary from library to library. Many
depository
libraries lend Government
documents, and some lend CD-ROM titles.
Finally, while computer literacy is increasing dramatically, many
depository library users are not yet conversant with computer
technology or are frustrated by the variety of software they must
master to utilize electronic Government information. This lack
of computer skills delays the user's access to the information
and requires additional assistance from library staff.
VII. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
A substantial amount of useful information was gathered and
numerous
issues and alternatives were identified and examined during the
course of the study. These are summarized in this report. A
number
of specific tasks were identified to provide information and
alternatives
for consideration. The preparation of the task force reports and
the review of public comments resulting from their dissemination
was the primary fact-finding activity of the study. Each task
force report is included as an attachment and is the product of
a substantial amount of effort on the part of the task leader
and participants.
Separately, a document entitled the Electronic Federal
Depository
Library Program: Transition Plan, FY 1996 - FY 1998 was
developed
by GPO and included with its FY 1997 appropriations request.
Public
comments in response to this document also provided useful
information
to the study participants,
and led directly to the development of the Federal Depository
Library Program: Information Dissemination and Access Strategic
Plan, FY 1996 - FY 2001, included with this report as Exhibit
1. The Strategic Plan proposes four ways in which GPO can bring
electronic information into the FDLP:
- - GPO can identify, describe and link the public to the
wealth
of distributed Government information products maintained at
Government
electronic information services for free public use.
- - GPO can establish reimbursable agreements with agencies
that
provide feebased Government electronic information services in
order to provide free public access to their information through
the FDLP.
- - GPO can "ride" agency requisitions and pay for
depository
copies of tangible electronic information products, such as
CD-ROM
discs, even if they are not produced or procured through GPO.
- - GPO can obtain from agencies electronic source files for
information
the agencies do not wish to disseminate through their own
Government
electronic information services. These files can be made
available
through the GPO Access services or disseminated to
depository
libraries in CD-ROM or other tangible format.
Section V, Policy Issues that Impact Publishing Agencies, GPO,
NARA, Depository Libraries, the Public and the Private Sector,
summarizes the major issues identified in the course of the study
process. While many of these issues are not new, this study has
examined the issues in the new context of the rapid shift of the
FDLP into a more electronic program.
The major conclusions of the study are summarized below:
Scope of the FDLP: There is widespread interest in
expanding
the content of the program to make it more comprehensive, and
a great deal of optimism that the rapid expansion of agency
electronic
publishing offers cost-effective options to do so. Nevertheless,
the highest priority remains the retention of information content
that historically has been in the program and is rapidly leaving
it as agencies move from print to electronic publishing or
eliminate
Government information products to save costs.
Notification and Compliance: The historical program relied
heavily on the ability of the FDLP to obtain material as it was
printed or procured through GPO. With the increasing emphasis
on electronic dissemination and decreasing compliance with
statutory
requirements for agencies to print through GPO, identifying and
obtaining information for the FDLP is becoming increasingly
difficult.
There must be new means to inform agencies of their
responsibilities
and to ensure compliance with agency FDLP obligations. There must
be effective means for all three branches of Government to notify
GPO of their intent to: (1) initiate, (2) substantially modify,
or (3) terminate Government information products. This includes
Government information products in all formats, including
information
available from Government electronic information services, such
as agency World Wide Web sites.
Permanent Access to Authentic Information: The FDLP has
the responsibility for providing permanent public access to the
official Government information products disseminated through
the program./25/ Historically, permanent access has been the role
of the regional depository libraries, and this has been a
cost-effective
means of ensuring that Government information products remained
available to the public indefinitely. Permanent access also is
an essential element of the electronic depository library
program,
but it will be more difficult to attain. To ensure permanent
public
access to official electronic Government information products,
all of the institutional program stakeholders (information
producing
agencies, GPO, depository libraries and NARA) must cooperate to
establish authenticity, provide persistent identification and
description of Government information products, and establish
appropriate arrangements for its continued accessibility. This
includes identification and implementation of standard formats
for FDLP dissemination/26/ and providing for the technological
currency
of the electronic information products available at GPO for
remote
access. In the case of tangible information products, permanent
access will remain a responsibility of regional depository
libraries,
while in the case of remotely accessible information products,
it will be the responsibility of GPO, as the administrator of
the FDLP, to coordinate a distributed system that provides
continuous,
permanent public access.
/25/ Permanent access is required by 44 U.S.C. §1911:
"Depository libraries not served
by a regional depository library, or that are regional depository
libraries
themselves,
shall retain Government publications permanently in either
printed
form or in
microfacsimile form, except superseded publications or those
issued
later in bound form
which may be discarded as authorized by the Superintendent of
Documents."
/26/ Additional conclusions related to the requirement for
assessment of standards for
creation and dissemination of electronic Government information
products are provided
on the next page.
Locator Services: Together, the Cataloging and Indexing
Program required by 44 U.S.C. §1710 and §1711 and the
Locator Services required by 44 U.S.C. §4101 provide the
statutory basis for GPO to assist depository libraries and the
public to identify and obtain access to the full range of
Government
information. In a distributed environment, where libraries and
users often access Government electronic information services
rather than local collections, tools for identifying and locating
information will be critical components of an effective program.
Timetable for Implementation: The Transition Plan,
submitted with the GPO FY 1997 appropriations request, projected
an ambitious, two and one-half year schedule for conversion to
a more electronic FDLP (FY 1996 to FY 1998). Input from
publishing
agencies and depository libraries indicates a five to seven year
transition would be more realistic and cost-effective since it
would allow GPO to convert to electronic information at the same
pace as publishing agencies can produce it and depository
libraries
can absorb it. It will be substantially more costly for GPO to
convert agency print publications to electronic formats than it
will be to work in partnership with the agencies, assisting them
in accelerating their own electronic publishing initiatives.
Consequently,
the Strategic Plan attached to the report as Exhibit 1 proposes
a transition period of FY 1996 through FY 2001.
Assessment of Standards for Creation and Dissemination of
Electronic
Government Information Products: For the successful
implementation
of a more electronic FDLP, the Congress, GPO and the library
community
must have additional information about future agency publishing
plans, as well as an expert evaluation of the cost-effectiveness
and usefulness of various electronic formats that may be utilized
for depository library dissemination or access. A central
implementation
issue is the identification and utilization of standards for
creation
and dissemination of electronic Government information products.
These standards would enhance access to and use of Government
information by both the Government and the public. The Government
produces an enormous quantity and variety of information. The
standards best suited for one type of data may be substantially
less suited, or even entirely inappropriate, for another.
Consequently,
there is no single standard in which all Government information
products can, or should, be created or disseminated.
Nevertheless,
it is in the best interests of the Government, and those who use
Government information, to achieve a greater degree of
standardization
than now exists, and to develop recommended standards for each
major type of Government information product in order to
facilitate
the exchange and use of that information.
To accomplish this, it is first necessary to know the range of
formats Federal agencies currently use in the creation and
dissemination
of information and to assess the de facto or actual standards
that are in use for each major type of data. It also is necessary
to identify areas where there is no standardization, or such
limited
standardization that the effect is virtually the same. Finally,
it would be useful to evaluate standards utilized by private
sector
and other non-governmental publishers. This information will
provide
the basis for an assessment, in consultation with the depository
library community, of the usefulness and costeffectiveness of
various electronic formats for depository library dissemination
or access. It also will be the basis for a dialog with the
National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the National
Commission
on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS), the National
Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST), and others with an interest
in establishing and promulgating Government-wide standards for
information creation and dissemination.
GPO is proposing to accomplish this data gathering and evaluation
through a joint effort with NCLIS. As an independent Federal
agency
established to advise the President and the Congress on national
policies related to library and information services adequate
to meet the needs of the people of the United States, NCLIS is
uniquely situated to coordinate this activity. While substantial
changes are already underway, this assessment of standards for
creation and dissemination of electronic Government information
products should proceed as rapidly as possible in order to assure
a successful and cost-effective transition to a more electronic
FDLP.
Cost of Electronic Information Dissemination: While there
are many benefits inherent in the use of electronic information,
including more timely and broader public access, there is no
conclusive
data at this time to support the assertion that it will result
in significant savings to the program as a whole in the next few
years. Based on comments received, electronic dissemination and
access will shift the costs among the program participants. For
example, GPO will incur additional, recurring costs to provide
permanent public access through its electronic information
services,
as will other Government agencies that maintain information
products
through their own services. Costs for migration can be minimized
by the adoption and use of open systems standards through the
entire life cycle of information productsfrom the time the
original
source files are created by the publishing agencies to final
preservation
by NARA.
Similarly, depository libraries and their users will have to pay
to print, or purchase printed copies of, information that is
needed
in print, but is no longer disseminated in the format through
the FDLP. At the same time, depository libraries will have to
provide specialized staff training, public access workstations,
software and the related services necessary to connect the public
to remotely accessible Government electronic information
services.
GPO will continue to monitor the technological capabilities of
the depository libraries to provide cost-effective public access
to electronic Government information products, particularly as
it relates to the standards utilized by agencies in the creation
and dissemination of electronic Government information products.
GPO also will begin to monitor the costs to users for printing,
downloading and similar services using depository library
equipment.
GPO and other study participants have noted that there is a need
for more in-depth and concrete data on the life cycle costs to
the Government for creating, disseminating and providing
permanent
access to its information products, to depository libraries for
providing public access to them, and to the public for using
them.
However, the transition to electronic dissemination of Government
information is still in its early stages, so it is doubtful that
reliable and conclusive data on life cycle costs could be
gathered
in this rapidly evolving period. Nevertheless, the assessment
of standards proposed in this report is an essential first step
toward the ultimate goal of collecting and analyzing information
life cycle costs. It will provide a basis for further
consultation
with the library community and for discussions with publishing
agencies concerning the appropriate standards for cost-effective
dissemination of Government information products in formats
appropriate
to the needs of users and the intended usage. The assessment also
will provide valuable information to Congress for the future
development
of appropriate and cost-effective Government information policies
and programs.
Legislative Changes: Substantial changes in the FDLP
already
are underway within the context of the existing statute.
Nevertheless,
certain key legislative changes could be made in order to assure
a successful and cost-effective transition to a more electronic
FDLP. These changes are discussed in the report on Task 6
(Attachment
D-5) and many of them are reflected in the preceding conclusions.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Legislative Requirements for the FDLP Study
Attachment B: Roster of Working Group Members, Advisors and Staff
Attachment C: List of Tasks
Attachment D: Task Force Reports
D-1 Task 1: Technical Analysis by a FederallyFunded Research and
Development
Center
D-2 Task 2: Identification of Relevant Laws, Regulations and
Policies
Regarding
Government Information Dissemination
D-3 Task 3: Bibliography of Information Relevant to the FDLP
Study
D-4 Task 5: Evaluation of Incentives for Publishing Agencies to
Migrate from
Print Products to Electronic Format
D-5 Task 6: Evaluation of Current Laws Governing the Federal
Depository
Library
Program and Recommendation of Legislative Changes
D-6 Task 7: Survey of Federal Agencies to Identify CDROM Titles
Not Currently
Included in the Federal Depository Library Program
D-7 Task 8A: Case Study on Congressional Bills
D-8 Task 8B: Case Study on the Congressional Serial Set
D-9 Task 8C: Case Study on the Department of Energy (DOE)
Research
Reports
D-10 Task 8D: Case Study on the Office of Technology Assessment
(OTA) Reports
D-11 Task 9: Evaluation of Inclusion in Electronic Formats of
Materials Not Traditionally Included in the FDLP in Either Paper
or Microfiche
D-12 Task 9A: Case Study on Securities and Exchange Commission
EDGAR Data
D-13 Task 9B: Case Study on Federal District and Circuit Court
Opinions
D-14 Task 10A: Case Study on STAT-USA Services
D-15 Task 10B: Case Study on the National Library of Medicine
MEDLINE Service
Attachment E: National Commission on Libraries and Information
Science (NCLIS) Principles of Public Information
Attachment F: Title 44 United States Codes Chapter 19--Depository
Library Program
Attachment G: Summary of the Results of the 1995 Biennial Survey
of Federal Depository Libraries
Attachment H: Recommended Minimum Specifications for Public
Access
Workstations in Federal Depository Libraries
Attachment I: Comments from U.S. Senators
Attachment J: Minutes from Meeting of Working Group and Advisors,
April 18,1996
Attachment K: Comments from the Depository Library Council to
the Public Printer
Attachment L: Comments from the Information Industry Association
Attachment M: Comments from the Library Associations
Attachment N: Comments from the National Commission on Libraries
and Information Science
Attachment A:
Legislative Requirements for the FDLP Study
Attachment A
Legislative Requirements for the FDLP Study
[This information was downloaded from legislative databases
online
via GPO Access.]
Senate Report 104-114 on H.R. 1854; FY 1996 Legislative Branch
Appropriations (Pages 48-49)
Public access to Government information is a basic right of every
American citizen. The Committee recognizes the critically
important
service that the Government Printing Office and participating
libraries in the Federal Depository Library Program provide to
citizens throughout the country in furnishing timely, equitable
access to Government information.
The dramatic advances in technology provide new opportunities
for enhancing and improving public access. However, the
increasing
utilization of electronic technologies in support of
dissemination
programs by all branches of government requires careful analysis,
planning, and probable restructuring of the current program.
Without
this analysis, planning, and a strongly coordinated effort,
improvements
to the program will be delayed, costly, and very well may
compromise
the public's right to Government information.
The Committee believes the planning should incorporate the goals
of equitable, efficient, timely, and dependable access to
Government
information. The Committee supports a strong coordinated effort
between the respective oversight and appropriation committees,
the Government Printing Office, executive branch agencies,
participating
depository libraries, and other relevant and appropriate
organizations.
To this end, the Committee directs the Public Printer to initiate
a study, under the direction of the Committee, that:
--Examines the functions and services of the Federal Depository
Library Program;
--Surveys current technological capabilities of the participating
libraries in the Federal Depository Library Program;
--Surveys current and future information dissemination plans of
executive branch agencies;
--Examines and suggests improvements for agency compliance of
relevant
laws, regulations, and policies regarding Government information
dissemination;
--Identifies measures that are necessary to ensure a successful
transition to a more electronically based program;
--Identifies the possible expansion of the array of Federal
information
products and services made available to participating libraries;
and
--Ensures the most costefficient program to the taxpayer.
The study shall include a strategic plan that will assist the
Congress in redefining a new and strengthened Federal information
dissemination policy and program.
In conducting the study, it will be important for the Public
Printer
to work closely with the respective oversight and appropriation
committees, executive branch agencies, other distributors of
Federal
documents and information products, the Library of Congress, the
depository library community, the National Technical Information
Service, users, the information industry, and other appropriate
organizations. The completed study shall be available to Congress
by March 1996.
H.R. 1854: FY 1996 Legislative Branch Appropriations (As
Reported
in the Congressional Record, July 28, 1995, Pages
H7965-H7966)
Amendment numbered 34:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 34, and agree to the same with an amendment,
as follows:
Restore the matter stricken by said amendment, amended to read
as follows:
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION
Sec. 210. The fiscal year 1997 budget submission of the Public
Printer to the Congress for the Government Printing Office shall
include appropriations requests and recommendations to the
Congress
that
(1) are consistent with the strategic plan included in the
technological study performed by the Public Printer pursuant to
Senate Report 104114;
(2) assure substantial progress toward maximum use of
electronic
information dissemination technologies by all departments,
agencies,
and other entities of the Government with respect to the
Depository
Library Program and information dissemination generally; and
(3) are formulated so as to require that any department,
agency,
or other entity of the Government that does not make such
progress
shall bear from its own resources the cost of its information
dissemination by other than electronic means.
And the Senate agree to the same.
House Report 104-212: Conference Report on H.R. 1854: FY 1996
Legislative Branch Appropriations (Pages 14-15)
Amendment numbered 34: Deletes a House provision stricken
by the Senate which would have amended section 1903 of Title 44,
and inserts a provision directing the Public Printer to include
in the fiscal year 1997 budget submission a proposal for the
depository
library program that will result in the conversion of this
program
to electronic format. The Public Printer is directed to propose
a means to create cost incentives for publishing agencies,
including
the Congress, to migrate from print-on paper products to
electronic
format. The conferees direct that the Public Printer and
Superintendent
of Documents consult with the Joint Committee on Printing, House
and Senate document publishing managers, and appropriate
executive
branch officials in the development of the fiscal year 1997
budget
program. The conferees also do not intend that the study directed
in the Senate report or the plan regarding electronic format
should
interfere with the activities of the authorizing committees to
consider legislation amending Title 44, U.S. Code, or any
legislative
initiative which will improve the Federal printing program.
Public Law 104-53 (109 Stat 533); Legislative Branch
Appropriations
Act, 1996; H.R. 2492, November 19, 1995
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION
SEC. 210. The fiscal year 1997 budget submission of the Public
Printer to the Congress for the Government Printing Office shall
include appropriations requests and recommendations to the
Congress
that-
(1) are consistent with the strategic plan included in the
technological
study performed by the Public Printer pursuant to Senate Report
104-114;
(2) assure substantial progress toward maximum use of electronic
information dissemination technologies by all departments,
agencies,
and other entities of the Government with respect to the
Depository
Library Program and information dissemination generally; and
(3) are formulated so as to require that any department, agency,
or other entity of the Government that does not make such
progress
shall bear from its own resources the cost of its information
dissemination by other than electronic means.
Attachment B:
Roster of Working Group Members, Advisors and Staff
Attachment B
Study to Identify Measures Necessary
for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic
Federal Depository Library Program
Participants
Representing the U.S. Government Printing Office
Mr. Michael DiMario Public Printer
Mr. Wayne Kelley Superintendent of Documents (Chair of Study)
Mr. Frank Biden Office of Congressional, Legislative, and Public
Affairs
Mr. Gil Baldwin Library Programs Service
Mr. Charles C. Cook Congressional Printing Management Division
Mr. Robert Cox Departmental Account Representative Division
Mr. Bill Guy Office of Budget
Ms. Judy Russell Office of Electronic Information Dissemination
Services
Mr. Jay Young Library Programs Service
Representing the U.S. Congress (Majority Staff)
Mr. George Cartagena Joint Committee on Printing
Ms. Christine Ciccone Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
Mr. Ed Edens Senate Committee on Rules and Administration
Ms. Catherine Fanucchi House Committee on House Oversight
Mr. Doug Fuller Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
Mr. Larry Harris Office of Senator Connie Mack
Ms. Linda Kemp Joint Committee on Printing
Mr. Keith Kennedy Senate Committee on Appropriations
Mr. Jonathon Lack Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
Mr. Ray Mock Office of Congressman Ron Packard
Mr. Mark Uncapher House Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight,
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and
Technology
Ms. Joy Wilson Senate Committee on Rules and Administration
Representing the U.S. Congress (Minority Staff)
Mr. John Chambers Joint Committee on Printing
Mr. Don DeArmon Office of Congressman Vic Fazio
Mr. Jim English Senate Committee on Appropriations
Ms. Kennie Gill Senate Committee on Rules and Administration
Mr. Charlie Howell House Oversight Committee
Mr. Eric Ilgenfritz Office of Senator Patty Murray
Mr. Robert Mansker Joint Committee on Printing
Mr. David McMillen Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
Mr. David Plocher Committee on Governmental Affairs
Representing the Library of Congress
Ms. Jane Bortnick Griffith Congressional Research Service
Mr. Harold Relyea Congressional Research Service
Representing the Office of Management and Budget
Mr. Bruce McConnell Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Mr. Glenn Schlarman Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Mr. Peter Weiss Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Representing the National Archives and Records
Administration
Mr. Tom Brown Center for Electronic Records
Ms. Fynnette Eaton Center for Electronic Records
Representing the Federal Publishers Committee
Mr. Ken Rogers STATUSA, Department of Commerce
Mr. John Weiner Information and Administration Services, Energy
Information Administration
Representing the Interagency Council on Printing and
Publication
Services
Mr. Roy Francis Branch of Policy and Printing Management,
Department
of the Interior
Representing the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Mr. Gary Bowden
Representing the Depository Library Community
Ms. Julia Wallace Government Publications Library, University
of Minnesota
Advisors
Ms. Prudence Adler Association of Research Libraries
Ms. Mary Alice Baish American Association of Law Libraries
Ms. Joan Challinor National Commission on Libraries and
Information
Science
Mr. Dan Duncan Information Industry Association
Ms. Jan Fryer Iowa State University, Depository Library Council
Ms. Roxanne Fulcher Special Libraries Association
Ms. Diane Garner Harvard University, American Library
Association/GODORT
Ms. Anne Heanue American Library Association
Ms. Carol Henderson American Library Association
Mr. Lloyd Hysan U.S. Supreme Court
Dr. Donald Johnson National Technical Information Service and
CENDI
Mr. Peyton Neal Information Industry Association
Mr. Dan O'Mahony Brown University, Depository Library Council
Ms. Lois Schoenbrun Special Libraries Association
Ms. Lynne Siemers Washington Hospital Center, Medical Library
Association
Advisors, continued
Ms. Jeanne Hurley Simon National Commission on Libraries and
Information
Science
Mr. Frederick Weingarten Computing Research Associates, American
Library Association
Mr. Peter Young National Commission on Libraries and Information
Science
GPO Staff
Mr. Bill Arndt Library Programs Service
Mr. Jeff Axline Library Programs Service
Ms. Terri Barnes Office of Electronic Information Dissemination
Services
Mr. Michael Bright Office of Electronic Information Dissemination
Services
Mr. Michael Clark Library Programs Service
Mr. Ric Davis Library Programs Service
Mr. Thomas Downing Library Programs Service
Ms. Laurie Hall Library Programs Service
Mr. Jerry Hammond Congressional Printing Management
Ms. Robin Haun-Mohamed Library Programs Service
Ms. Wendy Frederick Documents Technical Support
Mr. Joseph McClane Bibliographic Systems Branch
Ms. Sheila McGarr Library Programs Service
Ms. Maggie Parhamovich Library Programs Service
Mr. Joseph Paskoski Library Programs Service
Mr. Berry Reece Office of Marketing
Mr. Andy Sherman Office of the Public Printer
Mr. Willie Thompson Library Programs Service
Mr. Tony Zagami Office of the General Counsel
Special thanks is given to Ms. Wendy Kloiber Frederick who
provided
the primary staff support for the FDLP Study and to Mr. Ric Davis
who assisted with the drafting and editing of the FDLP Study
Report.
Attachment C:
List of Tasks
Attachment C
STUDY TO IDENTIFY MEASURES NECESSARY
FOR A SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION TO A MORE ELECTRONIC
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM
Tasks for Implementation
1. Technical analysis by a Federally-Funded Research and
Development
Center (FFRDC) to determine the most cost effective way to
provide
electronic access to Government information products to the
American
public through the Federal Depository Library Program [Task
Leader: Jay Young]
2. Identification of relevant laws, regulations and policies
regarding
Government information dissemination [Task Leader: Jane
Griffith]
3. Identification, acquisition and evaluatation of already
available
information, both published and unpublished, relevant to the FDLP
Study [Task Leader: Julia Wallace]
4. Identification of current and ongoing electronic information
dissemination activities for the Federal Depository Library
Program
[Task Leader: Judy Russell]
5. Evaluation of incentives for publishing agencies, including
Congress, to migrate from print products to electronic format
and include their electronic products in the FDLP [Task
Leader:
Roy Francis]
6. Evaluation of current laws governing the Federal Depository
Library Program and recommendation of and legislative changes
necessary for a successful transition to a more electronic
program
[Task Leader: Jay Young]
7. Survey of Federal agencies to identify CD-ROM titles that are
not currently included in the Federal Depository Library Program
[Task Leader: Gil Baldwin]
8. Development of individual case studies for specific Federal
electronic information dissemination initiatives with respect
to their costs, and impact on public access to information
through
the Federal Depository Library Program in comparison with present
methods of dissemination. Case studies include Congressional
Bills,
the Congressional Serial Set, Department of Energy (DOE) research
reports and Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) reports
[Task
Leaders: Charles Cook (Congressional information), Gil Baldwin
(DOE), Fynnette Eaton and Tom Brown (OTA)]
9. Evaluation of issues surrounding inclusion in electronic
formats
of materials not traditionally included in the FDLP in either
paper or microfiche, including case studies on Securities and
Exchange Commission EDGAR data and Federal District and Circuit
Court opinions [Task Leaders: Julia Wallace (overview and SEC)
and Gary Bowden (Federal courts)]
10. Review of Federal programs permitting or requiring the sale
of information to recover costs, and the effects on efforts to
assure free public access through the FDLP, including case
studies
on STAT-USA and the National Library of Medicine MEDLINE Service
[Task Leader: Ken Rogers (STAT-USA) and Gil Baldwin
(MEDLINE)]
Attachment D:
Task Force Reports
D-1 Task 1: Technical Analysis by a FederallyFunded Research and
Development Center (FFRDC)
D-2 Task 2: Identification of Relevant Laws, Regulations and
Policies
Regarding Government Information Dissemination
D-3 Task 3: Bibliography of Information Relevant to the FDLP
Study
D-4 Task 5: Evaluation of Incentives for Publishing Agencies to
Migrate from Paper Products to Electronic Format
D-5 Task 6: Evaluation of Current Laws Governing the Federal
Depository
Library Program and Recommendation of Legislative Changes
D-6 Task 7: Survey of Federal Agencies to Identify CDROM Titles
That Are Not Currently Included in the Federal Depository Library
Program
D-7 Task 8A: Case Study on Congressional Bills
D-8 Task 8B: Case Study on the Congressional Serial Set
D-9 Task 8C: Case Study on the Department of Energy (DOE)
Research
Reports
D-10 Task 8D: Case Study on the Office of Technology Assessment
(OTA) Reports
D-11 Task 9: Evaluation of Inclusion in Electronic Formats of
Materials Not Traditionally Included in the FDLP in Either Paper
or Microfiche
D-12 Task 9A: Case Study on Securities and Exchange Commission
EDGAR Data
D-13 Task 9B: Case Study on Federal District and Circuit Court
Opinions
D-14 Task 10A: Federal Programs Permitting or Requiring the Sale
of Information to Recover Costs -- Case Study on STAT-USA
Services
D-15 Task 10B: Federal Programs Permitting or Requiring the Sale
of Information to Recover Costs -- Case Study on the National
Library of Medicine MEDLINE Service
Attachment D-1
Task 1: Technical Analysis by a Federally-Funded
Research and Development Center
Attachment D-1
The draft report to Congress included a proposal for Technical
Implementation Assistance (TIA) in lieu of the FFRDC contract.
This TIA contract was to obtain additional information about
future
agency publishing plans and current depository library
capabilities,
as well as an expert evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and
usefulness of various electronic formats that may be selected
for depository library distribution or access. During the public
comment period, the concept of the TIA was refined further into
the Assessment of Standards for Creation and Dissemination of
Electronic Government Information Products, which is described
below.
For the successful implementation of a more electronic FDLP, the
Congress, GPO and the library community must have additional
information
about future agency publishing plans, as well as an expert
evaluation
of the cost-effectiveness and usefulness of various electronic
formats that may be utilized for depository library dissemination
or access. A central implementation issue is the identification
and utilization of standards for creation and dissemination of
electronic Government information products. These standards would
enhance access to, and use of, Government information both by
the Government and the public. The Government produces an
enormous
quantity and variety of information. The standards best suited
for one type of data may be substantially less suited, or even
entirely inappropriate, for another. Consequently, there is no
single standard in which all Government information products can,
or should, be created or disseminated. Nevertheless, it is in
the best interests of the Government, and those who use
Government
information, to achieve a greater degree of standardization than
now exists, and to develop recommended standards for each major
type of Government information product in order to facilitate
the exchange and use of this information.
To accomplish this, it is first necessary to know the range of
formats Federal agencies currently use in the creation and
dissemination
of information and to assess the de facto or actual standards
that are in use for each major type of data. It also is necessary
to identify areas where there is no standardization, or such
limited
standardization that the effect is virtually the same. Finally,
it would be useful to evaluate standards utilized by private
sector
and other non-governmental publishers. This information will
provide
the basis for an assessment, in consultation with the depository
library community, of the usefulness and costeffectiveness of
various electronic formats for depository library dissemination
or access. It also will be the basis for a dialog with the
National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the National
Commission
on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS), the National
Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST), and others with an interest
in establishing and promulgating Government-wide standards for
information creation and dissemination.
GPO is proposing to accomplish this data gathering and evaluation
through a joint effort with NCLIS. As an independent Federal
agency
established to advise the President and the Congress on national
policies related to library and information services adequate
to meet the needs of the people of the United States, NCLIS is
uniquely situated to coordinate this activity. While substantial
changes already are underway, this assessment of standards for
the creation and dissemination of electronic Government
information
products should proceed as rapidly as possible in order to assure
a successful and cost-effective transition to a more electronic
FDLP.
Attachment D-2
Task 2: Identification of Relevant Laws, Regulations and Policies
Regarding Government Information Dissemination
Attachment D-2
TASK 2: Identification of relevant laws, regulations and
policies regarding Government information dissemination.
INTRODUCTION
The FY 1996 Legislative Branch Appropriations Senate Report
(104114)
contained language directing the conduct of a study that:
- - examines the functions and services of the Federal
Depository
Library Program, including technological capabilities of the
participating
libraries;
- - surveys current and future dissemination plans of executive
branch agencies;
- - suggests improvements for agency compliance with relevant
laws
and policies regarding Government information dissemination; and
- - identifies necessary measures to ensure transition to a
more
electronically based and costefficient program.
As part of this effort, the Congressional Research Service (CRS)
was asked to prepare a compilation of statutes authorizing the
dissemination of government information to the public. The
methodology
employed involved searching for relationships of variant forms
of keywords in the text portion of the Westlaw online database
of The United States Code Annotated. The searches were repeated
to allow for all possible word combination and synonyms. The
results
of these searches were then reviewed by CRS staff to eliminate
irrelevant items and identify statutes of known relevance that
did not emerge from the searches. Known statutes were retrieved
by citation. This process was reiterated until CRS staff had a
degree of confidence in the results. The initial searching was
conducted in October, 1995, with additional searches performed
throughout the revision process.
Statutes mandating the publication of information in the Federal
Register or reports to Congress were eliminated. House Document
10415, prepared by the Clerk of the House, identifies statutory
requirements for reports to Congress. Also eliminated were
statutes
allowing only public examination of
agency records, but not calling for affirmative public
dissemination.
Particular reports and documents specified in Chapter 5, Title
2 and Chapter 13 of Title 44 were not included because there is
no language specifically indicating public dissemination.
This methodology, which relies heavily on online searching of
a massive database, cannot ensure that all relevant statutory
provisions are identified. Thus, a preliminary draft was
distributed
for review by others, including executive branch personnel, who
identified other statutes appropriate for addition to the
compilation.
We emphasize that this compilation identifies a large survey of
statutes providing Federal agencies with authority for
disseminating
government information to the public, but it cannot be
considered exhaustive or definitive.
The statutory provisions identified are listed in order by title
and section of The United States Code Annotated. In most cases,
the entire section is provided to give adequate context, although
in some instances editing was done to reduce the volume of the
document. The most relevant passages are
underlined. A guide to the relevant sections provides listings
according to agency and selected topics. A given section may
appear
under several headings depending on its contents. What the guide
reflects is that, in addition to broad Governmentwide information
dissemination policies (e.g., those in Title 44), many agencies
have some kind of generic publication or dissemination authority.
Further, there are many instances where specific authority is
granted for the publication or dissemination of particular kinds
of
information, the production of information services, or the
creation
of clearinghouses.
Only the index of Federal entities and the topical index are
provided
in this attachment.
INDEX OF FEDERAL ENTITIES
Administrative Conference of the U.S.
5 USC 594(3)
Consumer Product Safety Commission
15 USC 2054(a)(1)
Corporation for National and Community Service
42 USC 5021(a)(1)
Department of Agriculture
7 USC 423
7 USC 473b
7 USC 626
7 USC 1011(e)
7 USC 1593a
7 USC 1736a(b)(3)
7 USC 2201
7 USC 2330
7 USC 2662
7 USC 3125a(d), (e)
7 USC 3125b
7 USC 3125c
7 USC 5341(a)
7 USC 5403(c)
7 USC 5505(a)
7 USC 5711(g)(2)
7 USC 5712(a)(2)
7 USC 5882
16 USC 2804(c)
EO 11644, sec. 5
Department of Commerce
7 USC 423
13 USC 7
13 USC 62
13 USC 302
15 USC 272(c)(17)
15 USC 274
15 USC 290b
15 USC 330b
15 USC 1152
Department of Commerce, continued
15 USC 2208(a), (c)
15 USC 2220(a)(2), (6)
15 USC 2904(d)
15 USC 3704a
15 USC 3704(c)(15), (d)(1)
15 USC 3704b-2(a)
15 USC 3704b(e)
15 USC 3705(a)
15 USC 3710(c), (d), (e)
15 USC 4906
15 USC 4912
19 USC 2354(c)
19 USC 2544(a)
19 USC 2575a
19 USC 2576a
22 USC 3101(b)
22 USC 3103(a)(5)
22 USC 2121(b)(15)
22 USC 2122
33 USC 883b
EO 11625, sec. 1(3)
Reorganization Plan 4 of 1970,
section 1(e)
Department of Defense
10 USC 2517(c)
10 USC 10210
33 USC 2295
44 USC 1314
EO 11644, sec. 5
Department of Education
20 USC 107a(a)(4)
20 USC 1070a-51
20 USC 1092(d)
20 USC 1105f(b)
20 USC 1213c(d)(1)(C)(i), (d)(1)(E)
20 USC 1409(f), (g)
20 USC 1423(b)(7)
20 USC 1433
Department of Education, continued
20 USC 1452
20 USC 2402(c)
20 USC 2415
20 USC 2505(a)
20 USC 6041(b), (f), (g), (h)
20 USC 6622
20 USC 9001(b)
20 USC 9003
42 USC 1382h(c)
Department of Energy
15 USC 779(a)(4)
15 USC 790f(b)(2)
15 USC 2703(d)
15 USC 2706(c)
42 USC 2161
42 USC 5813
42 USC 5817(e)
42 USC 5916
42 USC 5919
42 USC 6349(c)(2)
42 USC 7112(5)(D)
42 USC 7135(a), (d), (j)
42 USC 7373
42 USC 8257(c)
42 USC 8541(a)(2)
42 USC 9003(b)
42 USC 9206(5)
42 USC 9310
42 USC 13336(b)
42 USC 13366
42 USC 13458(c)
42 USC 13478
Department of Health and Human Services
15 USC 1341(a)(4), (5), (6)
15 USC 4401(a)(1)
21 USC 358(d)
29 USC 657(g)
30 USC 813(h)
42 USC 241
42 USC 247b-4(b)
42 USC 263b(l)
42 USC 280b(b)
42 USC 283g(d)(1)
42 USC 284a(a)(3)(B)
42 USC 284e(c)(1)
42 USC 285a-2
42 USC 285b-2
42 USC 285b-7(b), (e)
42 USC 285c-1
Department of Health and Human Services,
continued
42 USC 285c-8
42 USC 285d-3
42 USC 285e-1(c)
42 USC 285e-6
42 USC 285e-7(a)
42 USC 285g-5(c)(1)(E)
42 USC 285m-2
42 USC 285o-4
42 USC 285p-2(c)
42 USC 285q-2(a)(3)(B)
42 USC 286
42 USC 286c
42 USC 286d
42 USC 287a(a)(3)(B)
42 USC 287d-1
42 USC 290aa(d)(3), (9), (16)
42 USC 290aa-1(a)(2)(B)
42 USC 290bb-2(c)
42 USC 290bb-21(b)(4), (d)
42 USC 290bb-31(b)(10)
42 USC 300e(c)(8)
42 USC 300j-24
42 USC 300u
42 USC 300u-6
42 USC 300u-7(d)
42 USC 300cc-17
42 USC 300cc-20(a)(5)
42 USC 300ee-31(b)
42 USC 679a
42 USC 1382h(c)
42 USC 1790(b)
42 USC 3012
42 USC 3016(a)
42 USC 3017(d)
42 USC 3031(a)(3)
42 USC 3032(a)(6)
42 USC 3505b(3)
42 USC 5104
42 USC 5105(b)
42 USC 5107(a)(1)
42 USC 5113(b)
42 USC 11252
42 USC 11262
42 USC 11411(c)
42 USC 13105
EO 12160, sec. 1-4(c)
Department of Housing and Urban Development
12 USC 1701x(a)(1)(i)
42 USC 3532(b)
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
continued
42 USC 5510
42 USC 5557(a)
42 USC 5589(a)
42 USC 11411(c)
42 USC 11922
Department of the Interior
16 USC 18a
16 USC 407bb
16 USC 407dd
16 USC 410ccc-2(c)
16 USC 469a-1(a), (b)
16 USC 470a(i), (j)
16 USC 471i(l)
16 USC 742d(a)
16 USC 943a
16 USC 1052(b)
16 USC 1383a(b)(5)(B), (h)
16 USC 2003(c)
16 USC 2302(e)
16 USC 2803(e)
16 USC 3142(e)(2)
16 USC 4722(a), (h)
30 USC 3
30 USC 1028(a)
30 USC 1211(c)
42 USC 1900(c)
44 USC 1320
EO 11644, sec. 5
Department of Justice
8 USC 1103(b)
8 USC 1324a(i)
18 USC 4124(d)
28 USC 521
42 USC 3722(c)
42 USC 3732(c)
42 USC 3769d(a)
42 USC 5667(b)
42 USC 5773(b)
Department of Labor
29 USC 2
29 USC 13
29 USC 435
29 USC 622
29 USC 713(c)
29 USC 714
29 USC 1535(a)(4)
29 USC 1708
Department of Labor, continued
29 USC 657(g)
30 USC 813(h)
Department of State
22 USC 5511
22 USC 1431
Department of Transportation
49 USC 111(c)(1), (2)(C), (5)
49 USC 329(a), (b)(1)
49 USC 506(c)
49 USC 5115(d)(2)
49 USC 5503
49 USC 20703(c)
49 USC 20902(c)
49 USC 32302(b)
49 USC 33112(h)
Department of the Treasury
19 USC 3109(b)(3)
31 USC 3513
Department of Veterans Affairs
38 USC 527
38 USC 5701(c)(3)
Environmental Protection Agency
15 USC 2663(a)
15 USC 2665(a)1, (4), (7); (c); (e)(5)(C)
15 USC 2668(b)
15 USC 2685(b)(2), (d), (e)
33 USC 1254(b), (l), (q)
42 USC 6937(a)
42 USC 6963(b)
42 USC 6982
42 USC 6983(b)(2), (e)
42 USC 7403(b)(1), (6)
42 USC 7408(b)(1), (f)(1), (h)
42 USC 9660(b)(8)
EO 11514, sec. 2(c)
EO 12780, sec. 301(e)(2)
Federal banking agencies
12 USC 4805(a)(1)(B)
Federal Election Commission
2 USC 438(a)(2)
Federal Emergency Management Agency
42 USC 4020
42 USC 5197(f)
Federal Emergency Management Agency,
continued
49 USC 5115(d)(1)
42 USC 5196(g)
General Accounting Office
31 USC 1112(c)
General Services Administration
10 USC 381(2)(c)
31 USC 6102(c)
31 USC 6104
40 USC 760(a)
40 USC 761
42 USC 11411(c)
Government Printing Office
44 USC 501
44 USC 504
44 USC 738
44 USC 1701
44 USC 1708
44 USC 1710
44 USC 1711
44 USC 1714
44 USC 1902
44 USC 1911
44 USC 4101
44 USC 4102
Institute for Scientific and Technological Cooperation
22 USC 3503(a)(6)
Interagency Council on the Homeless
42 USC 11313(a)(5)
Library of Congress
2 USC 150
17 USC 707
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
42 USC 2473
National Archives and Records Administration
5 USC 552a(f)
44 USC 2109
National Center for Productivity and Quality of Working Life
15 USC 2414(11)
15 USC 2415(2)
National Foundation on the Arts and the
Humanities
20 USC 954(c), (q)
20 USC 956(c)
Office of Management and Budget
44 USC 3504
44 USC 3511
Office of National Drug Control Policy
EO 12880, sec. 1(f)
Office of Personnel Management
EO 12871, sec. 25(b)
Office of Science and Technology Policy
16 USC 2805(b)
30 USC 1805(b)
Office of the Law Revision Counsel
2 USC 285b(3)
Small Business Administration
15 USC 631(b)(1)(E)
15 USC 634c(5)
15 USC 637(b)(1)(A), 15
15 USC 638(b)(4), (d)(1)
15 USC 649(b)(2), (c)(4), (5), (6)
15 USC 653(c)(3), (4)
Tennessee Valley Authority
EO 11644, sec. 5
U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
22 USC 2551
U.S. Information Agency
22 USC 1461(a)
22 USC 1461-1
U.S. Institute of Peace
22 USC 4604(b)(7), (8)
U.S. Metric Board
15 USC 205e(3), (7), (8), (9)
U.S. Sentencing Commission
28 USC 995(a)(14), (15), (16)
TOPICAL INDEX
catalog authorization
7 USC 2662(a)(3)
7 USC 3125b
7 USC 3125c
10 USC 381(2)(c)
16 USC 2803(e)
17 USC 707(a)
18 USC 4124(d)
20 USC 2505(a)
31 USC 6104
42 USC 286
44 USC 1711
census dissemination
13 USC 7
13 USC 302
42 USC 3012(e)
clearinghouse authorization
7 USC 2662(a)(3)
15 USC 637(b)(1)(A)
15 USC 779(a)(4)
15 USC 1152
15 USC 2054(a)(1)
15 USC 2208(a), (c)
15 USC 2665(a)(1)
15 USC 2685(e)(1)
15 USC 3704a
15 USC 3710(d), (e)
20 USC 1105f(b)
20 USC 1433
20 USC 6041(f)
20 USC 6622
22 USC 4604(b)(8)
29 USC 714
33 USC 1254(q)
42 USC 247b-4(b)
42 USC 283g(d)(1)
42 USC 284e(c)(1)
42 USC 285c-1
42 USC 285d-3(b)
42 USC 285e-7(a)
42 USC 285m-2(b)
42 USC 290aa(d)(16)
42 USC 290bb-31(b)(10)
42 USC 300u(a)(11)(C)
42 USC 300u-7(d)
42 USC 300ee-31(b)
42 USC 679a
42 USC 3012(d)(1)(B)
clearinghouse authorization, continued
42 USC 3505b(3)
42 USC 3532(b)
42 USC 3722(c)(7)
42 USC 3769d(a)
42 USC 5104
42 USC 5773(b)
42 USC 11922
42 USC 13105
42 USC 13366
42 USC 13458(c)
data base authorization and dissemination
7 USC 5882
10 USC 2517(c)(2), (4)
15 USC 2665(a)(7)
15 USC 4906
16 USC 943a
16 USC 1383a(h)
20 USC 1070a-51
20 USC 1213c(d)(1)(C)(i)
42 USC 285a-2(a)(2)(D)
42 USC 290bb-21(d)
42 USC 300cc-17
42 USC 5510(c)
42 USC 5557(a)
42 USC 7408(h)
42 USC 13105
49 USC 5503(d)
dissemination through the National Technical Information Service
10 USC 2517(c)(4)(B), (5)
15 USC 3704b-2(a)
electronic bulletin board authorization
22 USC 5511
film, video, sound recording production/acquisition and
dissemination
16 USC 1052(b)
20 USC 1452
generic dissemination authority
7 USC 2201
7 USC 3125a(d)(3), (e)
8 USC 1103(b)
10 USC 10210
12 USC 1701x(a)(1)(i)
13 USC 302
generic dissemination authority, continued
15 USC 272(c)(17)
15 USC 631(b)(1)(E)
15 USC 634c
15 USC 637(b)(15)
15 USC 638(b)(4), (d)(1)
15 USC 649(b)(2), (c)(4)
15 USC 653(c)(3), (4)
15 USC 1152(b)
15 USC 1341(a)(4), (5), (6)
15 USC 2208(a), (c)
15 USC 2414(11)
15 USC 2415(2)
15 USC 2703(d)
15 USC 2706(c)
15 USC 2904(d)
15 USC 3704a
15 USC 3704b(e)
15 USC 3710(c), (d)
16 USC 18a
16 USC 407bb
16 USC 407dd
16 USC 410ccc-2(c)
16 USC 470a(i), (j)
16 USC 742d(a)
16 USC 1383a(b)(5)(B)
16 USC 2003(c)
16 USC 2302(e)
16 USC 2805(b)
16 USC 3142(e)(2)
16 USC 4722(a), (h)
19 USC 2544(a)
19 USC 2575a
19 USC 2576a
19 USC 3109(b)(3)
20 USC 107a(a)(4)
20 USC 954(h)
20 USC 1105f(b)
20 USC 1213c(d)(1)(E)
20 USC 1409(f), (g)
20 USC 1423(b)(7)
20 USC 1433
20 USC 2402(c)
20 USC 2415
20 USC 2505(a)
20 USC 6041(b), (f)(4)(C)
20 USC 6622
20 USC 9001(b)
20 USC 9003
22 USC 1461(a)
22 USC 1461-1
22 USC 3101(b)
generic dissemination authority, continued
22 USC 4604(b)(7), (8)
22 USC 1431
22 USC 2121(b)(15)
22 USC 2122(8)
22 USC 2551
22 USC 3503(a)(6)
28 USC 995(a)(15), (16)
29 USC 622
29 USC 1535(a)(4)
29 USC 1708
30 USC 3
30 USC 1211(c)
31 USC 3513
31 USC 6102(c)(1)
33 USC 883b
33 USC 1254(b), (l)
38 USC 527
40 USC 760(a)
40 USC 761
42 USC 241
42 USC 247b-4(b)
42 USC 280b(b)
42 USC 283g(d)(1)
42 USC 284e(c)(1)
42 USC 285a-2
42 USC 285b-2
42 USC 285b-7(b), (e)
42 USC 285c-1
42 USC 285c-8
42 USC 285d-3
42 USC 285e-1(c)
42 USC 285e-6
42 USC 285e-7(a)
42 USC 285g-5(c)(1)(E)
42 USC 285m-2
42 USC 285o-4
42 USC 285p-2(c)
42 USC 286
42 USC 286d
42 USC 287d-1
42 USC 290aa(d)(3), (9), (16)
42 USC 290bb-2(c)
42 USC 290bb-21(b)(4)
42 USC 290bb-31(b)(10)
42 USC 300u
42 USC 300u-6
42 USC 300u-7(d)
42 USC 300cc-17
42 USC 300cc-20(a)(5)
42 USC 679a
42 USC 1382h(c)
generic dissemination authority, continued
42 USC 2161
42 USC 2473
42 USC 3012
42 USC 3016(a)
42 USC 3031(a)(3)
42 USC 3032(a)(6)
42 USC 3532(b)
42 USC 3722(c)(6)
42 USC 3732(c)
42 USC 3769d(a)
42 USC 4020
42 USC 5021(a)(1)
42 USC 5104(b)
42 USC 5105(b)
42 USC 5107(a)(1)
42 USC 5113(b)
42 USC 5196(g)
42 USC 5510
42 USC 5557(a)
42 USC 5589(a)
42 USC 5667(b)
42 USC 5773(b)
42 USC 5813
42 USC 5817(e)
42 USC 5916
42 USC 5919
42 USC 6963(b)
42 USC 6983(e)
42 USC 7112(5)(D)
42 USC 7135(a)
42 USC 7373
42 USC 7403(b)(1), (6)
42 USC 7408(b)(1)
42 USC 8257(c)
42 USC 8541(a)(2)
42 USC 9003(b)
42 USC 9206(5)
42 USC 9310
42 USC 9660(b)(8)
42 USC 11252
42 USC 11262
42 USC 11313(a)(5)
42 USC 13105
42 USC 13336(b)
42 USC 13366
42 USC 13458(c)
42 USC 13478
49 USC 111(c)(2)(C)
49 USC 329(a), (b)(1)
49 USC 5503
49 USC 32302(b)
generic dissemination authority, continued
EO 11514, sec. 2(c)
EO 11625, sec. 1(3)
EO 11644, sec. 5
EO 12160, sec. 1-4(c)
EO 12780, sec. 301(e)(2)
EO 12880, sec. 1(f)
generic publication authority
5 USC 594(3)
12 USC 1701x(a)(1)(i)
15 USC 205e(8), (9)
15 USC 272(c)(17)
15 USC 274
15 USC 3704(c)(15)
16 USC 18a
16 USC 407dd(c)
16 USC 410ccc-2(c)
16 USC 469a-1(a), (b)
16 USC 1052(b)
17 USC 707(b)
20 USC 954(c)
20 USC 1092(d)
20 USC 2505(a)
20 USC 9003
22 USC 3103(a)(5)
22 USC 4604(b)(7)
22 USC 2122(6), (8)
28 USC 995(a)(14)
29 USC 13
29 USC 435
29 USC 622
29 USC 713(c)
29 USC 1535(a)(4)
29 USC 657(g)
30 USC 813(h)
31 USC 1112(c)
33 USC 883b
33 USC 1254(b)
38 USC 5701(c)(3)
42 USC 241
42 USC 263b(l)
42 USC 280b(b)
42 USC 284a(a)(3)(B)
42 USC 285a-2
42 USC 285b-2
42 USC 285o-4
42 USC 285q-2(a)(3)(B)
42 USC 287a(a)(3)(B)
42 USC 290aa-1(a)(2)(B)
42 USC 300cc-20(a)(5)
42 USC 1790(b)
generic publication authority, continued
42 USC 1900(c)
42 USC 3012
42 USC 3016(a)
42 USC 3017(d)
42 USC 3732(c)
42 USC 5105(b)
42 USC 5113(b)
42 USC 5197(f)
42 USC 6983(b)(2)
42 USC 7135(d), (j)
42 USC 7403(b)(1)
42 USC 7408(f)(1)
42 USC 8541(a)(2)
42 USC 9206(5)
42 USC 9310
42 USC 13478
44 USC 2109
49 USC 506(c)
49 USC 5115(d)(2)
49 USC 33112(h)
EO 11644, sec. 5
government information locator service
44 USC 3511
44 USC 4101
information dissemination programs/plans assessment or
development
EO 12871, sec. 25(b)
15 USC 3704b(e)
15 USC 3705(a)
16 USC 471i(l)
20 USC 954(h)
30 USC 1805(b)
31 USC 6102(c)(2)
42 USC 286c
42 USC 300u-6(b)(4)
44 USC 3504
44 USC 3506
restrictions
5 USC 3107
7 USC 5712(a)(2)
20 USC 954(c)
20 USC 956(c)
22 USC 1461-1a
44 USC 501
44 USC 1102
44 USC 1108
44 USC 1701
sales authorization
7 USC 3125a(e)(4)
15 USC 4912
16 USC 1052(b)
19 USC 2544(a)
19 USC 2575a
19 USC 2576a
31 USC 6102(c)(1)
44 USC 1708
44 USC 1314
specific information dissemination
7 USC 423
7 USC 1011(e)
7 USC 473b
7 USC 626(b)
7 USC 1593a
7 USC 2330(b)
7 USC 2662(a)
7 USC 3125b
7 USC 3125c
7 USC 5505(a)(3)
7 USC 5882(c)
8 USC 1324a(i)
10 USC 2517(c)
13 USC 62
15 USC 290b
15 USC 330b
15 USC 649(c)(5), (6)
15 USC 790f(b)(2)
15 USC 2054(a)(1)
15 USC 2220(a)(2), (6)
15 USC 2665(a)(4); (c); (e)(5)(C)
15 USC 2668(b)
15 USC 2685(b)(2); (d)
15 USC 4401(a)(1)
15 USC 4906
16 USC 2804(c)
19 USC 2354(c)
30 USC 1028(a)
42 USC 300e(c)(8)
42 USC 6349(c)(2)
42 USC 11411(c)
49 USC 5115(d)(1)
Reorganization Plan 4 of 1970,
section 1(e)
specific publication production and dissemination
2 USC 150
2 USC 285b(3)
2 USC 438 (a)(2)
5 USC 552(a)(2)
specific publication production and
dissemination, continued
5 USC 552a(f)
7 USC 1736a(b)(3)
7 USC 2330(a)
7 USC 5341(a)
7 USC 5403(c)
7 USC 5711(g)(2)
7 USC 5712(a)(2)
13 USC 7
15 USC 274
15 USC 649(c)(6)(D)
15 USC 2220(a)(6)
15 USC 2663(a)
15 USC 3704(d)(1)
17 USC 707(a)
18 USC 4124(d)
21 USC 358(d)
28 USC 521
31 USC 6104
33 USC 2295
42 USC 286
42 USC 300e(c)(8)
42 USC 300j-24(b)
42 USC 6937(a)
42 USC 6982
44 USC 1314
44 USC 1710
44 USC 1711
44 USC 1714
specific publication production and
dissemination, continued
49 USC 20703(c)
49 USC 20902(c)
statistics dissemination
7 USC 626(a)
13 USC 62
16 USC 742d(a)
20 USC 6041(g)(2)(C)(iv)
20 USC 9001(b)
20 USC 9003
22 USC 3103(a)(5)
22 USC 2122(6)
29 USC 2
29 USC 435
42 USC 300e(c)(8)
42 USC 3012
42 USC 3732(c)
42 USC 7135(a), (d)
49 USC 111(c)(1), (5)
EO 12880, sec. 1(f)
telecommunications technology use
7 USC 3125b(b)
12 USC 4805(a)(1)(B)
20 USC 2402(c)
20 USC 6041(g)
22 USC 5511
This compilation was prepared by Jane Bortnick Griffith,
Specialist
in Information Science and Technology, Science Policy Research
Division; Harold C. Relyea, Specialist in American National
Government,
Government Division; and Frances A. Bufalo, Specialist in
Automated
Information Resources, Automation Office, with the assistance
of Morton Rosenberg, American Law Division and Donna Scheeder,
Congressional Reference Division.
Attachment D-3
Task 3: Bibliography of Information Relevant to the FDLP
Study
Attachment D-3
TASK 3: Identification, acquisition and evaluation of
already
available information, both published and unpublished, relevant
to the FDLP Study.
This bibliography includes a selection of articles, books,
reports,
surveys and documents on subjects related to the FDLP Study. It
is far from comprehensive, but attempts to include a variety of
materials and a mix of policy investigations and technical
studies.
When they were located, Universal Resource Locators (URL's) are
provided for materials which are available through the Internet.
Materials on the bibliography are grouped into seven general
areas:
* Information Access Policy and Practice
* Reports and Articles from Depository Library Conferences,
Librarians,
and Library Associations
* Surveys on Access to Technologies
* Archiving and Preservation of Electronic Information
* Technology and the National Information Infrastructure
* Selected Congressional Hearings and Reports
* Government Printing Office Studies
INFORMATION ACCESS POLICY AND
PRACTICE
Both general and specific issues relating to Government
information
access policy are explored from a variety of viewpoints in the
articles, reports and books listed here. Issues of equity and
access appear in many of the publications. Comprehensive
overviews
are found in the Hernon and Perritt studies, among others. The
public's use is investigated in reports from Bauman Foundation,
OMB Watch, and Ryan and McClure. And both Birdsall and Crawford
urge caution in embracing the myth of the totally electronic
library.
Bass, Gary D. and David Plocher. Strengthening Federal
Information
Policy: Opportunities and Realities at OMB. Washington, DC:
Benton Foundation, 1989.
Bauman Foundation. Agenda for Access: Public Access to Federal
Information for Sustainability through the Information
Superhighway:
A Report. Prepared by The Bauman Foundation with
Co-sponsorship
by The Benton Foundation, The HKH Foundation, The Rockefeller
Family Fund, The Summit Foundation. [Washington, DC]: Bauman
Foundation,
1995.
Bertot, John Carlo and Charles McClure. "Assessing U.S.
Government
Bulletin Boards: Problems, Policy Issues, and
Recommendations."
Internet Research: Networking Applications and Policy 4,
no. 1 (Spring 1994): 45-63.
Birdsall, William F. The Myth of the Electronic Library :
Librarianship
and Social Change in America. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,
1994.
Biscardi, Francine. "The Historical Development of the Law
Concerning Judicial Report Publication." Law Library
Journal
85 (1993): 531-544.
Browning, Graeme. "Dueling over Data." National
Journal
25 (December 4, 1993): 2880-2884.
Chartrand, Robert Lee, and Ketcham, Robert C. Opportunities
for the Use of Information Resources and Advanced Technologies
in Congress: A Study for the Joint Committee on the Organization
of Congress: A Consultant Report. New York: Carnegie
Commission,
1993.
Crawford, Walt, and Michael Gorman. Future Libraries: Dreams,
Madness & Reality. Chicago, IL: American Library
Association,
1995.
Doctor, Ronald D. "Social Equity and Information
Technologies:
Moving Toward Information Democracy." Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology 27 (1992): 43-96.
Gellman, Robert M. "Twin Evils: Government Copyright and
Copyright-Like Controls Over Government Information."
Syracuse
Law Review 45, no. 3 (1995): 999-1072.
Hernon, Peter, and Charles R. McClure. "Electronic U.S.
Government
Information: Policy Issues and Directions." Annual Review
of Information Science and Technology 28 (1993): 45-110.
Hull, Theodore J. "Reference Services and Electronic
Records:
The Impact of Changing Methods of Communication and Access."
Reference Services Review 23, no. 2 (Summer 1995): 73-78.
Information Industry Association. Principles for Federal
Dissemination
of Public Information: Executive Summary and Analysis;
Interim Final Report. Washington, DC: IIA, 1995.
Jones, Daryl L. "Florida's Response to Serving Citizens in
the Information Age." Journal of Government
Information
22 (1995): 13-22.
Kahin, Brian, "Information Policy and the Internet: Toward
a Public Information Infrastructure in the United States."
Government Publications Review 18, no. 5 (September/
October
1991): 451-472.
Love, James P. "The Marketplace and Electronic Government
Information." Government Publications Review 19, no.
4 (July/August 1992): 397-412.
Love, James. "Pricing Government Information."
Journal
of Government Information 22, no. 5 (1995):
363-387.
Massant, Eric J. "The Role of Libraries and the Private
Sector:
Policy Principles for Assuring Public Access to U.S. Federal
Government
Information: A Viewpoint." Journal of Government
Information
21,
no. 5 (September/October 1994): 383-90.
OMB Watch. People and their Governments in the Information
Age: Putting Government Information Online: A Report on the
National
Electronic Open Meeting and a Progress Report on Implementation
of the Government Information Locator Service (GILS).
Washington,
DC: OMB Watch, 1995.
Perritt, Henry H. Electronic Public Information and the
Public's
Right To Know: Proceedings of a Consultation in Washington,
D.C.
Washinton, DC: Benton Foundation, 1990.
Perritt, Henry H. Public Information in the National
Information
Infrastructure : Report to the Regulatory Information Service
Center, General Services Administration, and to the Administrator
of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget. Washington, DC: Office of Management
and Budget, 1994. (PREX 2.2:IN 3/3)
Ryan, Joe and Charles R. McClure. Users' Perspectives on U.S.
Government Information and Services on the Internet: A Summary
from Two Seminars: A Report Prepared for the Information
Infrastructure
Task Force. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, School of
Information
Studies, 1994.
Ryan, Joe, Charles R. McClure, and Rolf T. Weigand. "Federal
Information Resources Management: New Challenges for the
Nineties."
Government Information Quarterly 11, no. 3 (1994):
301-314.
Saffady, William. "Digital Library Concepts and Technologies
for the Management of Library Collections: An Analysis of Methods
and Costs." Library Technology Reports 31, no. 3
(May/June
1995): 221.
Schiller, Herbert I. Information Inequality: The Deepening
Social Crisis in America. New York: Routledge, 1996.
Schwartz, Bonnie Fox. "EDGAR Update: The Proliferation of
Commercial Products." Legal Information ALERT 15,
no. 1 (January 1996): 1 ff.
Sprehe, J. Timothy. "Issues in Public Access: The Solomons
Conferences." Government Publications Review 20
(May/June
1993): 251.
Tageldin, Shaden. "Local Government Roles and Choices on
the Information Superhighway." Public Management 77
(May 1995): 4-8.
United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment.
Informing
the Nation: Federal Information Dissemination in an Electronic
Age (OTA-CIT-396). Washington, DC: GPO, 1988. (Y 3.T 22/2:2
In 3/9)
United States. Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology.
Subcommittee
on Electronic Dissemination of Statistical Data. Electronic
Dissemination of Statistical Data. [Washington, DC]:
Statistical
Policy Office, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office
of Management and Budget, 1995. (Statistical Policy Working Paper
24). (URL: http://www.bts.gov or
http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/stats.htm)
United States. General Accounting Office. Federal Information:
Users' Current and Future Technology Needs: Fact Sheet for
the Chairman, Joint Committee on Printing, U.S. Congress
(GAO/GGD8920FS).
Washington, DC: GAO, 1988.
United States. General Accounting Office. Government Printing:
Legal and Regulatory Framework is Outdated for New Technological
Environment: Report to Congressional Committees. Washington,
DC: GAO, 1994. (GA 1.13: NSIAD94157)
United States. General Accounting Office. Information
Dissemination:
Federal CD-ROM Titles - What Are Available and How They Were
Priced.
Washington, DC: GAO, 1993. (GA 1.13:IMTEC-93-34 FS)
United States. Information Infrastructure Task Force. Working
Group on Intellectual Property Rights. Intellectual Property
and the National Information Infrastructure. Washington, DC:
Information Infrastructure Task Force, 1995. (C 21.2:P 94/3)
(URL:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/ipnii/)
United States. Task Force on Future Directions for the National
Archive of Criminal Justice Data. Future Directions for the
National Archive of Criminal Justice Data: Report of the Task
Force (NCJ154875). Washington, DC: Department of Justice.
Bureau of Justice Statistics; GPO, 1995. (J 29.2:D 62)
Wood, Fred. B. "Technology and Public Information."
Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 4 (Fall
1989):
79-82.
REPORTS AND ARTICLES FROM DEPOSITORY LIBRARY
CONFERENCES, LIBRARIANS,
AND LIBRARY ASSOCIATIONS
Depository librarians have planned and participated in
independent
conferences to develop plans for the electronic evolution of the
FDLP, and have been active members of strategic planning sessions
sponsored by Library Associations. Proposals for a renewed
commitment
to public access in its new formats include models for new
relationships
between agencies, libraries, oversight and operational
authorities,
and users. In addition, articles and reports identify essential
policy, technical and service issues as they relate specifically
to the FDLP. Two forthcoming special issues of the Journal
of Government Information ("Challenges to Access")
will include approximately two dozen new contributions from
policy-makers
and practitioners.
American Library Association. Government Documents Roundtable
(GODORT). Ad Hoc Committee on the Internet. "Whitepaper:
Government Information in the Electronic Environment."
January
1996. Documents to the People 24, no. 1 (March 1996). (C:
21-39)
(URL: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/GSSI/whiteppr.html)
Association of Research Libraries. Task Force on Government
Information
in Electronic Format. Technology & U.S. Government
Information
Policies: Catalysts for New Partnerships. Washington, DC:
Association of Research Libraries, 1987.
"Challenges to Access: New Approaches to a Continuing
Need."
Journal of Government Information, Forthcoming special
issues, Vol. 23, no. 3 and 4 (May/June and July/August, 1996).
Cornwell, Gary, Ridley R. Kessler, Duncan Aldrich, Thomas K.
Andersen,
Stephen M. Hayes, Jack Sulzer, and Susan Tulis. "Problems
and Issues Affecting the U.S. Depository Library Program and the
GPO: The Librarians' Manifesto." Government Publications
Review 20, no. 2 (March/April 1993): 121-140.
Depository Library Council to the Public Printer (U.S.).
"Alternatives
for Restructuring the Depository Library Program: A Report to
the Superintendent of Documents and the Public Printer from the
Depository Library Council." [Washington, DC]: September
1993. Administrative Notes 16, no. 16 (December 5, 1995):
23-59.
Dugan, Robert E. and Ellen M. Dodsworth. "Costing Out a
Depository
Library: What Free Government Information?" Government
Information Quarterly 11, no. 3 (1994): 261-284.
Dugan, Robert E. and Joan Cheverie. "Electronic Government
Information and the Depository Library Program: Paradise
Found?"
Government Information Quarterly 9, no. 3 (1992): 269-289.
"Dupont Circle Group: Discussion Draft, April 1993."
The Dupont Circle Reporter: An Electronic Informal Newsletter
for the Federal Depository Community. (1993).
(URL:
gopher://arl.cni.org:70/00/info/govinfo/dupont.circle/reporter)
"Enhanced Library Access and Dissemination of Federal
Government
Information: A Framework for Future Discussion." Working
Document endorsed by the American Association of Law Libraries,
American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries,
Special Libraries Association, 1995. American Association of
Law Libraries Newsletter 27, no. 1 (September 1995): 14-15.
(URL: gopher://arl.cni.org:70/00/info/govinfo/govinfo and
gopher://arl.cni.org:70/00/info/govinfo/govinfo.partners)
Ford, Stephanie. Public Access to Electronic Federal
Depository
Information in Regional Depository Libraries. Master's
Paper...School
of Information and Library Science of the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. 1995.
Levin, Marc A. "Access and Dissemination Issues Concerning
Federal Government Information." Special Libraries
74 (April 1983): 127-137.
"Model for 'New Universe' of Federal Information Access and
Dissemination: Preliminary Results of Forum on Government
Information
Policy, July 20-21, 1995, Sponsored by American Library
Association."
ALAWON, ALA Washington Office Newsline 4, no. 77 (August
9, 1995).
(URL:
gopher://ala1.ala.org:70/11/alagophwashoff/alagophwashoffforum)
Morton-Schwalb, Sandy. "Reinventing Access to Government
Information: Fact or Fiction?" Database 17, no. 6
(December 1994): 8-9.
O'Mahony, Daniel P. "The Road from Chicago...and Back Again:
A Status Report on Reinventing Access to Federal Government
Information."
Documents to the People 23, no. 2 (June 1995): 87-90.
Principles for the Development of the National Information
Infrastructure: American Library Association Telecommunications
and Information Infrastructure Policy Forum Proceedings.
Chicago,
IL: American Library Association, 1993. (URL:
http://www.ala.org/principl.html)
"Reinventing Access to Federal Government Information:
Report
of the Chicago Conference on the Future of Federal Government
Information, Chicago, Illinois, October 29-31, 1993."
Documents
to the People 21, no. 4 (December 1993): 234-246;
Administrative
Notes 14, no. 24 (November 30 1993): 11-29.
(URL:
gopher://arl.cni.org:70/1m/info/dupont.circle/chicago/post-chicag
o.txt)
Ruhlin, Michele, Herb Somers, and Judith Rowe. "National
Research and Education Network and the Federal Depository Library
Program." Documents to the People 19, no. 2
(June 1991): 106-109.
Shuler, John A. "Cyberspace and Democracy."
Documents
to the People 23, no. 2 (June 1995): 85-86.
Shuler, John A. "A New Order of Things: The Political Future
of Documents Librarians and a National System of Federal
Depository
Libraries." Government Information Quarterly 11, no.
3 (1994): 315-322.
Smith, Diane. "Depository Libraries in the 1990's: Whither
or Wither Depositories?" Government Publications
Review
17, no. 4 (1990): 301-324.
Sulzer, Jack. "Cyberspace Democracy: the 21st Century
Environment."
Documents to the People 22,
no. 4 (December 1994): 280-286.
Swanbeck, Jan, and Peter Hernon. Depository Library Use of
Technology: A Practitioner's Perspective. Norwood, NJ: Ablex,
1993.
SURVEYS ON ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGIES
Surveys have estimated the total number of users with Internet
access from 5.8 million with full, direct access (O'Reilly, 1995)
to 37 million with direct or indirect connections in the U.S.
and Canada (Commercenet/Nielsen, 1995). The Census Bureau's
surveys
have indicated that approximately 36% of the population over 17
had access to computers at home, work or school in 1993, but only
35% of home computers were equipped with modems. In Falling
Through the Net, the NTIA used Census Bureau survey data show
that information "have-nots" fall disproportionately
in rural areas and central cities.
The CommerceNet/Nielsen Internet Demographics Survey. [New
York]: CommerceNet Consortium/Nielsen Media Research, 1995. (URL:
http://www.commerce.net/information/surveys/)
O'Reilly & Associates. Defining the Internet
Opportunity.
Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly & Assoc., 1995. Summary at: (URL:
http://www.ora.com/gnn/bus/ora/survey/index.html)
Times Mirror Center for The People and The Press.
"Technology
in the American Household: Americans Going Online...."
Washington,
DC: The Center, 1995. (URL:
http://democracyplace.org/polls2.html)
United States. Bureau of the Census. Computer Use in the
United
States, 1989. Washington, DC: GPO, 1991. (Current Population
Reports; P-23 no.171). (C 3.186:P-23/171)
United States. Bureau of the Census. Computer Use in the
United
States, 1993. Not published, but available electronically
through Census gopher, FTP and Web sites.
(URL: http://www.census.gov/ftp/pub/population/www/compute.html)
United States. Department of Commerce. National
Telecommunications
and Information Administration. Falling Through the Net: A
Survey of the "Have Nots" in Rural and Urban
America.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Telecommunications
and Information Administration, 1995.
(URL: http://www.ntia.doc.gov:80/ntiahome/fallingthru.html)
United States. Department of Commerce. National
Telecommunications
and Information Administration. Survey of Rural Information
Infrastructure Technologies. NTIA Special Publication 95-33.
Washington, DC: GPO, 1995. (C 60.9:95-33) (URL:
http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/its/spectrum/rural/ruralrep.html)
ARCHIVING AND PRESERVATION OF ELECTRONIC
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
The technical and procedural issues surrounding the preservation
of electronic Government information are complex and challenging.
These publications represent the growing body of research which
is proposing a more aggressive stance for the National Archives
and Records Administration in obtaining, managing and providing
access to electronic Government information products. The
Commission
on Preservation and Access proposes a national system of digital
archives involving many stakeholders.
National Academy of Public Administration. The Archives of
the Future: Archival Strategies for the Treatment of Electronic
Databases: A Study of Major Automated Databases Maintained by
Agencies of the U.S. Government. A report for the National
Archives and Records Administration. [Washington, DC: NAPA,]
1991.
National Research Council (U.S.). Steering Committee for the
Study
on the Long-term Retention of Selected Scientific and Technical
Records of the Federal Government. Preserving Scientific Data
on Our Physical Universe: A New Strategy for Archiving the
Nation's
Scientific Information Resources. Washington, DC:
National
Academy Press, 1995.
Preserving Digital Information: Report of the Task Force on
Archiving of Digital Information. Commissioned by The
Commission
on Preservation and Access and The Research Libraries Group.
[Washington,
DC] 1996. (URL: http://www-rlg.stanford.edu/ArchTF/)
TECHNOLOGY AND THE NATIONAL INFORMATION
INFRASTRUCTURE
Literature about the growing National Information Infrastructure
abounds. The publications below attempt to define the issues and
the roles for the many players, including governments at all
levels,
libraries, schools, and the non-profit and private sectors.
Anderson, Robert H., Tora K. Bikson, Sally Ann Law, and Bridger
M. Mitchell. Universal Access to E-Mail: Feasibility and
Societal
Implications. Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 1995.
(URL: http://www.rand.org:80/publications/MR/MR650/)
Drake, William J., ed. The New Information Infrastructure:
Strategies for U.S. Policy. New York: The Twentieth Century
Fund Press, 1995.
Huffman, Lisa, and Woody Talcove. "Information
Infrastructure:
Challenge and Opportunity." Public Management 77
(May
1995): 9-14.
Interagency Kiosk Committee (U.S.) The Kiosk Network Solution
: An Electronic Gateway to Government Service. Prepared by
the Interagency Kiosk Committee for the Customer Service
Improvement
Team of the Government Information Technology Services Working
Group. [Washington, DC: Office of the Vice President, 1995] (PRVP
42.2: K 62)
Kahin, Brian, and James Keller, eds. Public Access to the
Internet.
A Publication of the Harvard Information Infrastructure Project.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.
Libraries and the National Information Infrastructure:
Proceedings
of the 1994 Forum on Library and Information Services Policy.
[Washington, DC]: U.S. National Commission on Libraries and
Information
Science, 1995. (Y 3.L 61:2 P 94/3)
McClure, Charles R., John Carlo Bertot, and John C. Beachboard.
Internet Costs and Cost Models for Public Libraries: Final
Report. Washington, DC: U.S. National Commission on Libraries
and Information Science, 1995. (Y 3.L 61:2 C 82)
McClure, Charles R., William E. Moen, and Joe Ryan. Libraries
and the Internet/NREN: Perspectives, Issues and Challenges.
Westport, CT: Meckler, 1993. (See especially chapter 7, "The
Federal Depository Library Program and the National Research and
Education Network," by John H. Sulzer)
McClure, Charles R., John Carlo Bertot, and Douglas L. Zweizig.
Public Libraries and the Internet: Study Results, Policy
Issues,
and Recommendations. Washington, DC: U.S. National
Commission
on Libraries and Information Science, 1994. (Y 3.L 61:2 L 61/6)
National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council (U.S.).
Common
Ground: Fundamental Principles for the National Information
Infrastructure:
First Report of the National Information Infrastructure Advisory
Council. Washington, DC: National Information Infrastructure
Advisory Council, 1995. (C 60.2:IN 3) (URL:
http://nii.nist.gov/common-ground.txt)
National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council (U.S.). A
Nation of Opportunity: Realizing the Promise of the Information
Superhighway. Washington, DC: National Information
Infrastructure
Advisory Council, for sale by GPO, [1996]. (C 60.2:P 94) (URL:
http://www.benton.org/KickStart/nation.home.html)
National Performance Review (U.S.). Reengineering Through
Information
Technology : Accompanying Report of the National Performance
Review.
Washington, DC: Office of the Vice President; For sale by GPO,
1993. (PRVP 42.2:G 74/REENG) (URL:
http://www.npr.gov/NPR/Reports/it.html)
Technology and Economic Performance: Organizing the Executive
Branch for a Stronger National Technology Base. New York:
Carnegie Commission, 1991.
United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment.
Critical
Connections: Communication for the Future (OTA-CIT-470).
Washington,
DC: GPO, 1990. (Y 3.T 22/2:2 C 73/13)
United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment.
Making
Government Work: Electronic Delivery of Federal Services
(OTA-TCT-578).
Washington, DC: GPO, 1993. ( Y 3.T 22/2:2 E l2/12)
(URL: http://otabbs.ota.gov/T23)
United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment.
Rural
America at the Crossroads: Networking for the Future
(OTA-TCT-471).
Washington, DC: GPO, 1991. (Y 3.T 22/2:2 Am 3/3)
United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment.
Telecommunications
Technology and Native Americans: Opportunities and Challenges
(OTA-ITC-621). Washington, DC: GPO, 1995. (Y 3.T 22/2:2 T 23/2)
(URL: http://otabbs.ota.gov/pub/pdf/telecom.natam/)
United States. Department of Commerce. National
Telecommunications
and Information Administration. Connecting the Nation:
Classrooms,
Libraries, and Health Care Organizations in the Information Age:
Update 1995, by Emilio Gonzalez. Washington, DC: GPO, 1995.
(C 60.2:C 76)
(URL: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/connect.html)
United States. Department of Commerce. National
Telecommunications
and Information Administration. NTIA Infrastructure Report:
Telecommunications in the Age of Information. NTIA Special
Publication 91-26. Washington, DC: GPO, 1991. (C 60.2:T 23)
United States. Information Infrastructure Task Force. National
Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Action. [Washington,
DC: Executive Office of the President], Information
Infrastructure
Task Force, [1993]. (PREX 1.2:IN 3) (URL:
http://sunsite.unc.edu/nii/toc.html)
Walsh, R. Taylor. The National Information Infrastructure and
the Recommendations of the 1991 White House Conference on Library
and Information Services. Washington, DC: GPO, 1994. (Y
3.L61:2
IN 3/4)
SELECTED CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS AND
REPORTS
In addition to the investigations below, extensive data on the
subjects in the FDLP Study are found in annual appropriations
hearings.
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Government
Operations.
Electronic Collection and Dissemination of Information by
Federal
Agencies: A Policy Overview. (H. Report 99-560) Washington,
DC: GPO, 1986. (Y 1.1/8:99-560)
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Government
Operations.
Creative Ways of Using and Disseminating Federal Information.
Hearings, 19 June 1991, 19 February and 4 June 1992.
Washington,
DC: GPO, 1992. (Y 4.G74/7:In 3/24)
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Government
Operations.
Electronic Collection and Dissemination of Information by
Federal
Agencies. Hearings, 29 April, 26 June, and 18 October 1985.
Washington, DC: GPO, 1986. (Y 4.G 74/7:EL 2/5)
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Government
Operations.
Taking a Byte Out of History: The Archival Preservation of
Federal Computer Records (H. Report 101-978). Washington,
DC: GPO, 1990. (Y 1.1/8:101-978)
United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Printing. An Open
Forum on the Provision of Electronic Federal Information to
Depository
Libraries: Report of the Staff of the Joint Committee on Printing
to the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing (S. Print
99-84). Washington, DC: GPO, 1985. (Y 4.P 93/1:EL 2/4)
United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Printing.
Government
Information as a Public Asset. Hearing, 25 April 1991 (S.
Hearing 102114). Washington, DC: GPO, 1991. (Y 4.P 93/1:G 74/12)
United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Printing. New
Technology
and the Government Printing Office. Hearings, 19 June and
24 July 1991 (S. Hearing 102115). Washington, DC: GPO, 1992. (Y
4.P 93/1:T 22)
United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Printing.
Provision
of Federal Government Publications in Electronic Format to
Depository
Libraries: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Depository Library
Access to Federal Automated Data Bases. Washington, DC: GPO,
1985. (Y 4.P 93/1:P 92/2)
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Human
Resources. Libraries and their Role in the Information
Infrastructure.
Hearing 19 April 1994. (S. Hearing 103-569). Washington, DC:
GPO, 1994. (Y 4.L 11/4:S. HRG. 103-569)
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE STUDIES
United States. Government Printing Office. Library Programs
Service.
Electronic Capabilities of Federal Depository Libraries,
Summer
1994. Washington, DC: GPO, 1995. (GP 3.2:EL 2/2)
United States. Government Printing Office. Report of the
Serial
Set Study Group: Investigation of Alternatives for Production
and Distribution of the Bound U.S. Congressional Serial Set.
Washington, DC: GPO, 1995. (GP 1.2:SE 6/3)
United States. Government Printing Office. Superintendent of
Documents.
Accessing the Economic Bulletin Board: Electronic Publications
in the Federal Depository Library Program Pilot Project
Report.
Washington, DC: GPO, 1994. (GP 3.2:EC 7)
United States. Government Printing Office. Superintendent of
Documents.
Accessing U.S. Department of Energy Scientific and Technical
Information: Electronic Publications in the Federal Depository
Library Program Pilot Project Report. Washington, DC: GPO,
1993. (GP 3.2:SCI 2)
United States. Government Printing Office. Superintendent of
Documents.
Reading the Congressional Record on CD-ROM: Electronic
Publications
in the Federal Depository Library Program Pilot Project
Report.
Washington, DC: GPO, 1992. (GP 3.2:C 76/2)
Attachment D-4
Task 5: Evaluation of Incentives for Publishing Agencies to
Migrate
From Print Products to Electronic Format
Attachment D-4
TASK 5: Evaluation of incentives for publishing agencies,
including Congress, to migrate from print products to electronic
format and include their electronic products in the FDLP.
METHODOLOGY
Input was solicited from the two main agency sources involved
in publishing and distribution of Government information:
Information
Resource Management (IRM) Officers and Printing Officers. This
task was most relevant to the Printing Officers since the request
from Congress was to identify cost incentives to migrate from
print products to electronic format. However, IRM Officers were
included in order to identify the opportunities for, and
obstacles
to, including agency electronic information products in the FDLP.
From interviewing associates in the two fields, it is apparent
that there is a definite difference of opinion on possible
incentives
for participation in the FDLP. Also, due to the differing
procedural
functions of the two entities, it was necessary to approach this
task from two different perspectives.
BACKGROUND
Printing Management
The printing community is very familiar with 44 U.S.C. Chapter
19 and the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). It appears
that in this arena there are real possibilities for an effective
incentive program. Virtually all publications are made available
to the FDLP automatically through the GPO printing procurement
process. Only publications procured outside the GPO procurement
process, "fugitive documents," fail to be considered
for the FDLP. Printing management responses indicate a real
perceived
value to participation in the FDLP and an appreciation for the
incentives already implicit in the current structure, i.e. that
GPO pays for printing depository copies when a publication is
printed or procured through GPO.
Currently, approximately 50% of all printing requests submitted
to GPO are submitted in an electronic format, but these encompass
a wide variety of formats. While this 50% is a basis for
electronic
distribution, it will require reformatting by the agencies or
GPO to put the Government information products in formats useful
to and useable by depository libraries. If it becomes mandatory
for GPO to make publications available to the FDLP in an
electronic
format, printing managers fear that the originating office could
become responsible for creating, or reformatting, the document
in a format suitable for FDLP distribution. If that occurs, it
will be an administrative burden on the originating agencies as
well as an additional expense, and therefore, a major
disincentive
to participation in the FDLP. This might lead to more fugitive
documents.
Since GPO is the recommended procurement office for Federal
printing
and the coordinator for the FDLP system, it is reasonable to
assume
that a program to enhance the FDLP system should start with the
GPO. With its FY 1997 budget justification, GPO included the
Electronic Federal Depository Library Program: Transition Plan,
FY 1996 FY 1998 (known as the Transition Plan) which sought
continued funding and the authority for GPO to create, or
reformat,
electronic Government information products for distribution
through
the FDLP./27/
/27/ Public comments in response to this document led directly
to
the development of the
Electronic Federal Depository Library Program: Information
Dissemination and Access
Strategic Plan, FY 1996 - FY 2001, included with this report as
Exhibit 1.
Information Resources Management (IRM)
Unlike Printing Management, the typical IRM office is unaware
of 44 U.S.C. Chapter 19 requirements and the FDLP. There is
little
doubt that the IRM community has moved into the electronic
information
management age. With the advent of the Internet, more
specifically
the World Wide Web (Web), public access to Government information
products has reached new levels. Virtually all publications that
involve IRM routinely are evaluated for dissemination through
agencies' Web servers. However, Government information products
made available directly to an IRM office may not be intended to
be printed. Likewise, documents made to be printed may not be
submitted to an IRM office.
A key problem is that an IRM office often does not know what
publications
have been made available to GPO for printing and likewise the
publications being printed often are not made available to an
IRM office. It is apparent that the two entities do not
communicate
as thoroughly as necessary, therefore, information products are
missed by both offices. There are many legitimate reasons why
this happens, but subject matter and audience appear to be major
considerations in determining whether an information product goes
to printonpaper or to the IRM community.
Typical IRM offices see no incentive to make Government
information
products available electronically through the FDLP. The belief
is that as long as these products are made available to the
public
via the Web, their mission of providing information to the
American
public is complete because the information is available to anyone
who has access to a computer and the Internet. This overlooks
the necessity to provide Government information products to those
who do not have Internet access and a computer, as well as the
need to provide permanent access, both of which currently are
assured by the FDLP.
It should be noted that if the FDLP continues, the general
consensus
in the IRM community is that all depository libraries should be
required to include a minimum standard of computer equipment,
including at the absolute minimum: CDROM readers, network
connections,
download and printing capabilities. In fact, this has occurred
and the minimum technical guidelines become requirements in
October
1996.
General Conclusions
Although several specific alternatives for new incentives were
developed and are discussed below, the strongest incentive
identified
during this task was, in fact, the one that exists in the current
program: make participation as effortless and automatic as
possible
and at no cost to the agency. One agency official summarized this
by saying "first do no harm," i.e. don't distract the
agencies from their primary missions or require the expenditure
of any of their increasingly scarce resources. The current system
where GPO rides agency print orders at its own expense means that
merely by printing through GPO, as required by 44 U.S.C., FDLP
participation is ensured at no cost to the agency. Whatever new
mechanisms are put in place, a more electronic FDLP must provide
an equally simple and costeffective means for agency
participation.
DISSEMINATION ALTERNATIVES
Incentive A
Establish an electronic information management function within
the Superintendent of Documents. This would be similar to the
current system of publication identification and review via GPO
Form 3868 (Notification of Intent to Publish) and the SF1
(Printing
and Binding Requisition), where all Government information
products
are reviewed to establish the requirements for depository library
distribution as part of the publication process. The electronic
information management function would assume those current duties
and add to that a determination of balance between electronic
requirements and printing needs. It is anticipated that the
number
of printonpaper copies will be greatly reduced by this process.
GPO would utilize to the extent possible electronic information
products received from agencies and, when necessary, create or
procure alternative formats useful to and useable by depository
libraries and the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). GPO, in conjunction with the depository libraries and
within its available funding, could provide remote access to
electronic
Government information products or disseminate it in a tangible
form such as CDROM. Electronic information products included in
the FDLP also would be transferred to NARA at the appropriate
time and in formats acceptable to NARA. It should be noted that
this transfer would not relieve the publishing agency of its
archival
responsibility without a change in the law or archival
regulations.
Benefits
- - This would not affect the procurement process of GPO. It
would
reduce the number of printonpaper copies needed for the FDLP,
thereby reducing the total cost of printing to GPO.
- - Agencies could continue to meet public requests for their
Government
information products by referring inquiries to depository
libraries.
- - Agencies would continue to submit documents to GPO in the
same
manner with no additional burden or cost.
- - GPO remains the main focal point for a significant portion
of
the documents entering the FDLP. This would not adversely affect
the current printing procurement procedure, but would continue
to funnel documents through a central point for dissemination
to the public.
- - This alternative allows for standardization of formats of
publications
for electronic dissemination. Standard formatting is a cause for
great concern among all Federal agencies including GPO and NARA.
It is widely accepted that this is probably the most imposing
task we face in electronic publishing today. This would also
provide
the option for the agencies to receive their own electronic
information
products back from GPO in one of the standardized formats at
little
or no additional cost to the agency.
- - Reformatting to standard formats by GPO relieves the
submitting
agency from encumbering their current process. This encourages
participation in the FDLP by eliminating the cost for
reformatting
each publication for electronic dissemination. At the same time,
it guarantees widespread distribution of agency information
products.
- - Whenever it is possible and cost-effective to do so, GPO
will
reformat agency information products into formats suitable for
preservation and will transfer them to NARA at the appropriate
time. With the necessary change in law or archival regulations,
providing electronic information products to GPO for FDLP
distribution
in these instances also would fulfill an agency's obligation to
NARA.
Disadvantages/Problems
Incentive B
For agencies who wish to maintain access to their electronic
information
products themselves, encourage participation in the FDLP by
offering
to have the GPO Pathway locator services direct users to the
agency
Web sites. Also, offer to provide permanent access through the
FDLP when the agency no longer has the desire or resources to
maintain their electronic information products on their Internet
sites. Partnerships between GPO and these agencies could be
formalized
through interagency agreements. Electronic information products
transferred to GPO for the FDLP also would be transferred to NARA
at the appropriate time and in formats acceptable to NARA. It
should be noted that this transfer would not relieve the
publishing
agency of its archival responsibility without a change in the
law or archival regulations.
Benefits
- - More electronic information products are brought
"officially"
into the FDLP.
- - Public access is improved because the GPO Pathway locator
services
provide a centralized mechanism for finding electronic Government
information products on multiple Government Web sites.
- - Permanent access to electronic Government information
products
through the FDLP is maintained.
- - Whenever it is possible and cost-effective to do so, GPO
will
reformat agency information products into formats suitable for
preservation and will transfer them to NARA at the appropriate
time. With the necessary change in law or archival regulations,
providing its electronic information products to GPO for FDLP
distribution in these instances also would fulfill an agency's
obligation to NARA.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - Depository libraries that currently have little or no Web
access
cannot access electronic Government information products on these
sites. This disadvantage will be reduced over time as depository
libraries upgrade their equipment and Internet access.
- - The willingness of GPO to provide permanent access is not
an
incentive for agencies to convert from print to electronic
format,
although it does have the potential to bring additional
Government
electronic information products into the FDLP.
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
Need for Central Management of Public Access and Dissemination
The Government Printing Office is an important cog in the Federal
Government procurement system. GPO has been very effective in
procuring a myriad of crosscutting services far beyond simple
printing. This is accomplished at the best price and quality
level
available in the United States. In the Government printing
community
there is a heavy reliance on the expertise and guidance of GPO
staff in addition to printing procurement.
While the information management community may be decentralized,
there should remain a central focal point and coordinated means
for assuring public access to Government information products.
As stated earlier, GPO is the recommended procurement source for
Federal printing and is the coordinator for the FDLP. It is
reasonable
to assume that any program should only enhance what GPO now
provides
better than any other source. The natural progression is to begin
making GPO the Federal Government's information manager for
public
dissemination of Government information products.
Standard Formats for Electronic Government Information Products
The need for standard formats has been a key issue for a number
of years. Now is an excellent time to address it. If standard
formats are implemented, expenditures could be reduced in
preparation,
printing, distribution, storage and retrieval, archiving, and
use of electronic Government information products.
Education and Outreach
Many agency IRM and program managers are unaware of the FDLP and
their obligations to the program under 44 U.S.C. Chapter 19 and
OMB Circular A130. Some of those who are aware do not recognize
the value of the program in providing public access to their
electronic
information products. To influence these managers it may be
necessary
to implement an outreach program highlighting what the FDLP is,
the role it plays in providing public access to Government
information,
and agency obligations to the FDLP. The difficulty will be in
locating those people within an agency who need to be contacted
as responsibilities for dissemination of information becomes
increasingly
decentralized.
Attachment D-5
Task 6: Evaluation of Current Laws Governing the
Federal Depository Library Program
and Recommendation of Legislative Changes
Attachment D-5
TASK 6: Evaluation of current laws governing the Federal
Depository Library Program and recommendation of any legislative
changes necessary for a successful transition to a more
electronic
program.
Changes to 44 U.S.C. Chapter 19 would facilitate the transition
to a more electronic Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP).
The changes discussed below support the FDLP Study Report,
particularly
Section III, Principles for Federal Government Information, and
Section IV, Mission and Goals for the Federal Depository Library
Program.
SCOPE OF INFORMATION IN THE FDLP
Electronic Information to be Included
Electronic Government information products must be included in
the FDLP in order to provide the broadest possible public access.
The current definition of "government publication" in
44 U.S.C. §1901 needs to be broadened to include, without
question, electronic information products. The following
language,
which would substitute new definitions, is one way to accomplish
this:
"Government information" means Government
publications,
or other Government information products, regardless of form or
format, created or compiled by employees of a Government agency,
or at Government expense, or as required by law.
"Government information product" means a discrete
set of Government information, either conveyed in a tangible
physical
format including electronic media, or made publicly accessible
via a Government electronic information service.
"Government electronic information service" means
the system or method by which an agency or its authorized agent
provides public access to Government information products via
a telecommunications network.
The purpose of this language is to broaden the scope of the
chapter
to include information in electronic formats, whether published
as a tangible product or made accessible via a Government
electronic
information service.
"Cooperative Publications" Exclusion
Another consensus emerged from the Task 6 participants, as well
as the broader FDLP Study working group relating to 44 U.S.C.
§ 1903. This section permits the exclusion from the FDLP
of "socalled cooperative publications which must necessarily
be sold in order to be selfsustaining." This exclusion has
resulted in Government information of significant public interest
being kept out of the FDLP. In the view of the Task 6
participants
this exclusion should be eliminated.
Fee-based Electronic Services
The general public, through the FDLP, should have no-fee access
to all Government information products meeting FDLP requirements.
However, attaining this goal is often at odds with statutory or
other requirements on agencies that fees be charged for access
to their electronic information services. This situation might
be resolved in two ways. Through legislative action, agencies
could be directed to extend no-fee access to the public through
depository libraries. Alternatively, funds appropriated to the
Superintendent of Documents for the FDLP could be used to
purchase
depository library access from the originating agencies.
How Information Is Made Available
The decentralized characteristics of the electronic information
environment make it impractical for any single organization to
obtain all electronic information products for access and
preservation,
nor is such an approach cost-effective. Both FDLP Study working
group and Task 6 participants envision that GPO would make
information
available to depository libraries and the public in a variety
of ways. The centralized acquisition and distribution of tangible
products would continue, as this activity has significant value
to the depository library community. However, purely electronic
Government information products could be accessible from a
variety
of Government electronic information services, including the
GPO
Access services. This could include services operated by the
originating agencies or other entities acting as their agents,
or by secondary disseminators. Language such as the following
would clarify this approach:
The Superintendent of Documents shall make tangible products
available through distribution to program libraries and shall
direct program libraries and the general public to Government
information products available via Government electronic
information
services.
Obtaining Copies of Products not Produced through GPO
Sometimes electronic Government information products are not
included
in the FDLP because they are not produced or procured through
the Government Printing Office. The Task 6 participants agreed
that the Superintendent of Documents should be authorized to use
appropriated funds to obtain, on an incremental cost basis,
copies
of tangible electronic information products, particularly CD-ROM
titles, which are produced or procured elsewhere than through
GPO.
Agencies shall notify the Superintendent of Documents of
tangible
electronic information products which are to be produced or
procured
elsewhere than through the Government Printing Office and
establish
procedures whereby the Superintendent of Documents may obtain
copies on an incremental cost basis.
Electronic Source Files
As nearly all Government information products exist in electronic
form at some point in their life cycle, most FDLP Study
participants
concurred that the most cost-effective method of incorporating
additional electronic information products into the FDLP was to
obtain that source data from the originating agency. The
following
language provides one approach to obtaining these source data
files:
Upon request of the Superintendent of Documents, agencies
shall
provide the Superintendent of Documents with electronic source
data files of any Government information products falling within
the scope of this Section.
PERMANENT PUBLIC ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
Historically, the FDLP, through the mechanism of the regional
depository libraries, has guaranteed permanent access to tangible
Government information products. With respect to purely
electronic
Government information, there is no parallel mechanism to ensure
that this information is maintained for permanent public access.
Nearly all of the FDLP Study participants and FDLP stakeholders
have raised issues concerned with maintaining electronic
Government
information products for permanent public access. The Task 6
participants
agreed that GPO, as the administrator of the FDLP, should
coordinate
the development of a distributed system including the publishing
agencies, GPO, the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA), and depository libraries for such purposes. The following
language is one way to accomplish this:
The Superintendent of Documents will coordinate with issuing
agencies, the National Archives and Records Administration, and
with regional and other program libraries to establish a system
so that Government information products available via Government
electronic information services will be maintained permanently
for program library and general public access. This system will
utilize as one component the electronic storage facility
established
by the Superintendent of Documents under the provisions of
Section
4101, Chapter 41, Title 44, U.S. Code.
REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES
Public Service
Depository libraries are expected to provide no-fee public access
to Government information products included in the FDLP. For
tangible
information products, all but the regional depository libraries
may select what products they wish to receive and add to their
collections, based on their assessment of local needs. For purely
electronic Government information, depository libraries are
expected
to provide no-fee public access to all such information provided
under the aegis of the FDLP. FDLP electronic information products
may be accessible from GPO Access, or the SOD Pathway
locator
services may direct and link users to other agencies' electronic
information services.
The Task 6 participants agreed that the commitment to provide
public service should be emphasized as a responsibility of any
depository library. Language such as the following, which expands
upon Section 1909, could clarify this point:
Only a library able to properly maintain and provide public
access to Government information and located in an area where
it can best serve the public need, and within an area not already
adequately served by existing program libraries may be designated
...
Retention and Disposal of Government Information
In addition, a need to clarify and update the retention
requirements
on both regional and selective depository libraries was
identified.
This could be accomplished, in part, by removing the specific
five-year retention requirement from the statute, and allowing
libraries to dispose of Government information products as
authorized
under guidelines to be issued by the Superintendent of Documents;
and in part by the language such as the following:
Regional program libraries shall permanently retain at least
one copy of all Government information products originally
distributed
either in printed, microform, or tangible electronic form, except
superseded publications or those issued later in bound form which
may be discarded. Other Program libraries may dispose of
government
information products as authorized by the Superintendent of
Documents.
Such language would clarify that the regional depository
libraries'
responsibilities for retaining copies of tangible products, e.g.
books, maps, CD-ROM titles, etc., are not extended automatically
to electronic information products made accessible via Government
electronic information services. Instead, regional depository
libraries could elect to participate in the development of a
distributed
system for providing permanent public access to Government
electronic
information products.
NOTIFICATION
In order for the FDLP to function effectively in a decentralized
electronic environment, timely notice is required so that GPO
personnel can obtain and/or convert data and provide locator
services.
A requirement is needed that publishing components notify the
Superintendent of Documents at such time as they initiate,
substantially
modify, or terminate Government information products. The
following
language is one way to accomplish this:
Agencies shall notify the Superintendent of Documents of their
intent to initiate any Government information product and shall
notify the Superintendent of Documents at such time as they
substantially
modify, or terminate a product available via a Government
electronic
information service.
COMPLIANCE ISSUES
There was a consensus among Task 6 participants that agency
compliance
with the FDLP requirements of Title 44 has long been an issue.
Historically, Section 1903, which authorizes the SOD to pay for
copies of products produced or procured through GPO, and which
requires agencies to bear the cost of FDLP copies produced other
than through GPO, has acted as an incentive for agencies to
participate
in the program. Nevertheless, there were numerous instances where
agencies failed to comply with the Title 44 requirements, and
the Section 1903 "incentive" is not as effective in
its application to information published via a Government
electronic
information service. Regardless of the reasons for agency
non-compliance,
the result is that Government information products are
unavailable
to the public through the FDLP. A consensus emerged among Task
6 participants that statutory language is needed to improve
program
compliance among the agencies; however, no specific language was
proposed.
CATALOGING AND LOCATOR SERVICES
Incorporating electronic information into the FDLP poses new
challenges
to users trying to find what they want. The Task 6 participants
perceived a need to coordinate the traditional SOD cataloging
activity, covering tangible information products, with the
developing
suite of Pathway locator services directing users to information
available from Government electronic information services. The
following language, which would replace the existing Sections
1710 and 1711, is one way to approach this:
The Superintendent of Documents shall provide cataloging and
locator services which will direct program libraries and the
general
public to Government information products.
The Superintendent of Documents shall create a comprehensive
and timely catalog of tangible Government information products
which will be accessible to program libraries and the general
public. The Public Printer and the head of each agency shall
immediately
deliver to the Superintendent of Documents a copy of every
tangible
Government information product falling within the scope of
Chapter
19 of this Title.
The Superintendent of Documents shall create an electronic
directory of Government information products available via
Government
electronic information services as required by Section 4101 of
Chapter 41, of this Title, which will identify, describe, and
dynamically link users to information products available via
Government
electronic information services. When an agency makes an
information
product available only via a Government electronic information
service, the agency shall immediately furnish information about
that product to the Superintendent of Documents to enable the
Superintendent of Documents to provide locator services.
REDESCRIBING THE PROGRAM TO REFLECT A CHANGING
ENVIRONMENT
A consensus developed among Task 6 participants that the program
should be redescribed to be more reflective of the electronic
information environment. "Depository" was viewed as
strongly linked to the old paradigm of shipping physical
products,
and did not adequately express the goal of public access to
public
Government information products. To express this aspect of the
program more fully, and to emphasize the affirmative role of
agencies
to make their information available, the Task 6 participants
suggested
that the title of Chapter 19 could be changed to: "Public
Access to Government Information through Libraries: The Federal
Information Dissemination and Access Program."
New definitions such as the following would support such a
change:
The "Federal Information Dissemination and Access
Program"
is a nationwide geographically-dispersed system, administered
by the Superintendent of Documents, consisting of program
libraries
acting in partnership with the United States Government,
established
within this Chapter for the purpose of enabling the general
public
to have local access to Federal Government information at no
cost.
This introduced a possible new term, "program library,"
which would replace the former "depository library,"
and might be defined as:
"Program library" means a depository or other
library
designated under the provisions of Chapter 19 which maintains
tangible Government information products for use by the general
public, offers professional assistance in locating and using
Government
information, and provides local capability for the general public
to access Government electronic information services.
Attachment D-6
Task 7: Survey of Federal Agencies to Identify CDROM Titles
Not Currently Included in the Federal Depository Library
Program
Attachment D-6
TASK 7: Survey of Federal agencies to identify CDROM
titles
that are not currently included in the Federal Depository Library
Program (FDLP).
METHODOLOGY
Contacting Federal publishers concerning their CDROM publishing
has been a shared effort by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the Government Printing Office (GPO). OMB requested
information from the executive branch publishing agencies, and
GPO queried selected legislative and judicial branch publishers.
Respondents were asked to include detailed information about
their
CDROM publishing activities since FY 1993 and to provide reasons
for not including specific CDROM titles in the FDLP. The OMB
memorandum
was done in conjunction with their effort to gather data for the
National Information Infrastructure initiative.
This task group hoped to identify specific reasons for
participation
and nonparticipation in the FDLP, in order to learn what
motivates
agencies. The responses were not sufficient to support a
statistical
analysis, but some general conclusions can be drawn from the
responses.
These results are based on replies from 24 executive branch
agencies,
2 legislative branch agencies, and 2 judicial branch
organizations.
Survey letters were sent to 35 executive agencies, including all
cabinet level agencies. All cabinet level agencies except the
Department of State responded, although State does have at least
one CDROM title in the FDLP. However, the responses from many
cabinet level agencies were obviously incomplete. For example,
both the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and Bureau of the
Census
responded to the survey, but other Commerce agencies such as NTIS
and NOAA which have major CDROM publishing programs did not
respond.
In order to gain additional perspective on the agency responses,
GPO gathered additional data from two sources. Records on CDROM
titles in the FDLP were extracted from GPO's Acquisition,
Classification,
and Shipment Information System (ACSIS) and this information was
compared with the CDROM titles reported by the agencies, in order
to determine if GPO had distributed any CDROM titles which
agencies
reported as not in the FDLP.
GPO staff also reviewed records from the 1995 SIGCAT Compendium,
a voluntary listing of CDROM titles, most of which are published
by Federal Government agencies. Although the Compendium data is
not directly comparable to the results from the OMB and GPO
survey
because of a different time period and other parameters, it did
provide another means to assess agency responses.
SURVEY RESULTS
- - The survey responses identified 215 CDROM titles. The
agency
responses identified only 91 (42.3%) as being distributed to
depository
libraries. An additional 27 titles (12.6%) were identified by
GPO as being included in the FDLP, even though the publishing
agencies stated that those title were not included. Therefore,
altogether, 118 (54.8%) of the 215 titles identified by
publishing
agencies are in the FDLP.
- - Three agencies, the Census Bureau, Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS), and the Department of Education, accounted
for 71 (78.0%) of the 91 CDROM titles reported by agencies as
included in the FDLP. GPO records indicated that another 16 of
the titles reported by these three agencies were actually in the
FDLP, raising the total to 87 of a possible 118 (73.7%).
- - Census reported providing 42 out of 66 CDROM titles, or
63.6%
of its CDROM titles. According to GPO records, Census actually
provided 56 of its 66 CDROM titles (84.8%).
- - DHHS provided 16 out of 25 CDROM titles reported, or 64.0%,
and GPO's records confirmed this report.
- - Education acknowledged providing 13 out of 33 CDROM titles
reported,
or 39.3%. According to GPO records, it actually provided 15
titles
(45.5%).
- - No reasons for participation in the FDLP were expressed by
any
of the respondents. No reasons for nonparticipation were provided
for 65 of the 117 titles (55.6%) identified by agencies as not
included in the FDLP.
- - Eight CDROM titles not included in the FDLP do have
comparable
titles in the program in paper, although it was not possible to
determine if the content is identical.
- - The two most frequent reasons given for nonparticipation
were
that the software license imposes a limit on the number of copies
distributed (21 responses) and that title was produced or is
available
through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) (14
responses). Other reasons include: forthcoming title (4);
commercially
developed and distributed (4); public availability under review
(4); contains restricted or confidential information (2);
distributed
by another agency (1); and an offer to arrange to include the
title in the FDLP (1). Several responses included more than one
reason.
- - Judiciary and legislative branch responses indicated little
to no CDROM publishing activities to date. However, both the
Supreme
Court and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts mentioned
an interest in future CDROM development. The Library of Congress
response included a list of eleven CDROM titles, all of which
were bibliographic in nature and all of which were excluded from
the program as cooperative publications and/or due to licensing
restrictions. LC did not report any of its American Memory discs
or other CDROM titles.
Agency Name Number of Number of Number of
Number
of
Titles Titles in the Titles in the
Titles
Reported: FDLP: FDLP:
Reported:
Agencies Agency GPO Confirmed
1995 SIGCAT
Reported
Compendium
EXECUTIVE
Agriculture 13 0 0
13
Commerce/BEA 2 2 2
0
Commerce/Census 66 42 56
104
Defense 8 3 3
14
Education 33 13 15
9
Energy 5 1 3
0
EPA 5 0 3
6
FCC 11 0 0
0
FDIC 1 0 0
0
Health 25 16 16
17
HUD 0 0 0
1
Interior/USGS 13 1 8
67
Justic 1 1 1
2
Labor 6 3 4
3
NARA 1 1 1
2
NASA 0 0 0
107
NRC 0 0 0
0
NSF 1 0 0
0
OMB 0 0 0
0
SBA 0 0 0
0
Transportation 9 5 5
2
Treasury/IRS 2 2 2
1
USIA 0 0 0
0
Veterans 2 1 1
0
JUDICIAL
Supreme Court 0 0 0
0
Admin. Office 0 0 0
0
LEGISLATIVE
GAO 0 0 0
0
LC 11 0 0
3
TOTAL 215 91 118
351
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Some executive agencies with significant CDROM publishing
activities
did not respond to the survey, or responded that they have no
CDROM titles when other information suggests that they have many.
For example, a search of the 1995 SIGCAT CDROM Compendium
database
identified 107 CDROM titles issued by NASA, which reported no
CDROM titles in response to the survey. A similar search
identified
104 titles from NOAA and 54 from NIST, although neither agency
responded to the survey.
In discussions not related to this task force report, agencies
have identified other reasons for not including their CDROM
titles
in the FDLP. These reasons included a lack of awareness of the
program or its benefits; miscellaneous software licensing issues;
or that their discs were cooperative publications which must be
sold in order to be selfsustaining, as defined in 44 U.S.C.
§1903.
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
Agency Responsibilities for Dissemination Through the FDLP
Some agencies believe that making their products available
through
NTIS satisfies their public dissemination obligations, although
OMB Circular A130 states that it is good public policy to include
agency electronic information products in the FDLP. There is
unresolved
disagreement between various program stakeholders as to whether
current law requires CDROM titles to be in the FDLP. This issue
hinges on the definition of a publication codified in 44 U.S.C.
§1901 and §1902.
Software Licensing
Restrictions arising from software licensing arrangements affect
not only the cost, but the availability of CDROM products. All
Government information products provided through the FDLP,
including
CDROM titles, remain the property of the Government, so FDLP
copies
can fall within contractual language that restricts the software
to Government use. Agencies may need to consider FDLP
requirements
and include appropriate language in their contracts in order for
their discs to be included in the FDLP. GPO can (and has)
contracted
for software licenses for sales and depository copies when agency
licenses do not cover GPO dissemination.
Awareness of the FDLP/Communications
Since CDROM titles may be produced by agency personnel unfamiliar
with traditional printing arrangements there can be a lack of
communication within the publishing agency which results in discs
not being included in the FDLP. In addition, not all relevant
personnel within the agency may be aware of how their information
products reach the public. Thus, even agencies like Census and
Education that work closely with GPO and are committed to
including
their information in the FDLP do not always know which of their
titles are and are not in the program. A program of improved
communication
or outreach to agencies may be necessary to ameliorate this
situation.
Attachment D-7
Task 8A: Case Study on Congressional Bills
Attachment D-7
TASK 8A: Evaluation of the costs and benefits of
converting
Congressional bills and resolutions to electronic formats for
distribution through the Federal Depository Library Program.
BACKGROUND
The legislative agenda of each Congress determines the number
of bills introduced. Therefore, although it is possible to
determine
the average number of bills per session this average does not
accurately predict the number of bills that will be produced in
any particular session. For the 102nd and 103rd Congressional
Sessions, the total number of bills and resolutions simple, joint
and concurrent was 24,543. All published versions of bills are
available electronically via Internet or asynchronous connection
through GPO Access. Files are available in both ASCII and
Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF). PDF files provide
users with an exact image of the typeset page. With an Adobe
Acrobat
Reader, available at no cost from GPO or Adobe, users can view,
navigate and print Congressional bills exactly as they appear
in the original typeset version, including all fonts, graphics
and formats.
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY DISTRIBUTION
Congressional bills on microfiche are selected by 859 depository
libraries. This item selection includes House and Senate Bills,
Resolutions, Joint Resolutions and Concurrent Resolutions on
microfiche.
The cost to the FDLP per session of Congress for the production
and distribution of Congressional bills and resolutions on
microfiche
is approximately $94,940.
Prior to December 1995, when free public access to the GPO
Access databases was announced, the electronic bills were
selected by 544 depository libraries. WAIS access to
Congressional
bills, joint, concurrent and simple resolutions was selected by
199 libraries, and SWAIS access was selected by 257 libraries.
Both types of access were selected by 88 libraries. However,
these
figures do not represent the total number of depository
subscriptions
to the electronic services because each depository library could
register for as many as 10 subscriptions while being counted as
having made only a single item selection.
Currently, depository libraries may select Congressional bills
and resolutions in both microfiche and electronic formats. Under
the policies laid out in the Federal Depository Library
Program:
Information Dissemination and Access Strategic Plan, FY 1996 -
FY 2001 (Strategic Plan) for the FDLP, this will no longer
be an option for depository libraries as all dual distribution
will be discontinued. The Strategic Plan specifies that:
Redundant dissemination of content in different formats; e.g.
paper and microfiche, or microfiche and electronic, or CD-ROM
and online, will be reduced. In making the decision to eliminate
redundant versions of the same content, LPS will consider such
factors as the usability, intended audience, time sensitivity,
and costs of the various formats. Only "core" paper
titles such as those listed in Appendix A represent potential
duplicate distribution, as their content also may be available
electronically.
DISSEMINATION ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A
Eliminate all microfiche distribution to depository libraries
and make Congressional bills and resolutions available strictly
through the GPO Access WAIS server. The PDF files for the
bills also could be mounted for FTP download. This would allow
libraries who only have access to the bills database through
SWAIS
to obtain the more useful PDF files.
Benefits
- - Timely delivery of the information.
- - $94,940 currently spent for microfiche distribution is
saved,
although this is offset by increased depository usage of the WAIS
server.
- - No new product development is required.
- - PDF files provide exact images of the typeset bills and can
be searched, printed, and cut and pasted into other documents.
Therefore the information is more useful in this format than it
is on microfiche.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - Distribution costs will be higher than for microfiche. It
is
estimated that 11.41% of the WAIS server currently is being used
for the bills database. Based upon this figure, the estimated
percentage of WAIS costs that can be attributed to the bills
database
is $138,000 per year. This is $43,060 more than distribution
costs
for microfiche. However, as the bills currently are distributed
in both microfiche and electronic format, moving solely to
electronic
dissemination will reduce costs overall by eliminating dual
distribution.
- - The number of depository libraries that will be able to
access
this information will decline. Preliminary results from the 1995
Biennial Survey indicate less than 50% of depository libraries
have computer terminals with Internet access available for public
use. Of those libraries who do not provide Internet access for
the public, 169 (12.3%) said they have no plans to obtain it.
The percentages of depository libraries with Internet access for
public patrons are as follows:
E-mail 21.4%
Telnet 38.9%
FTP 30.8%
World Wide Web (graphical) 37.6%
World Wide Web (non-graphical) 27.3%
The revised minimum technical guidelines for depository libraries
(January 1995) recommend that libraries try to establish a
SLIP/PPP
Internet connection. The Depository Library Council has
recommended
that these guidelines be made requirements effective October 1,
1996.
- - As more Congressional sessions are added to the GPO
Access
WAIS server it will be necessary to remove older, less frequently
used bills. If depository access to historical files is to be
ensured, a less costly, permanent access method will be needed
to supplement access to the bills through GPO Access. This
may mean production of a CD-ROM or mounting of the PDF and ASCII
files for FTP downloading after a predetermined period of time.
Alternative B
Eliminate microfiche distribution of the Congressional bills and
resolutions in favor of a monthly cumulative CD-ROM containing
the PDF files. Depository libraries still would be able to access
the GPO Access service. Producing and distributing 12
discs
a year would cost approximately $60,908. This figure can be
broken
down as follows:
Mastering of twelve discs per year $ 21,000
Replication of 859 discs plus 20 claims copies @ $3.50
distributed
monthly $ 36,918
Postage (estimated $0.29 per disc) $ 2,990
Total cost of discs distributed monthly $ 60,908
Benefits
- - Total costs savings of $34,032 over the current cost for
microfiche
distribution of the same material.
- - Depository libraries are better equipped to handle CD-ROM
titles
than they are to handle Government electronic information
services.
According to preliminary results from the 1995 Biennial Survey,
83.1% of all depository libraries had CD-ROM capability at a
stand-alone
workstation. In addition, the revised technical guidelines for
depository libraries recommend libraries acquire a single or
multiple
platter CD-ROM drive compatible with the ISO 9660 standard.
- - CD-ROM is a good media for depository distribution. As a
read-only
media, CD-ROM assures the integrity of the data, and the
estimated
media life of a CD-ROM is 30 years or more. However, the
longevity
of the retrieval and display software frequently used on CD-ROM
titles is less certain due to dependency on specific computer
operating systems or other technology that may become obsolete
more rapidly than the physical media.
- - The PDF files provide exact images of the typeset bills and
can be searched, printed, and cut and pasted into other
documents.
Therefore the information is much more useful in this format than
it would be on microfiche. However, although PDF is an open
format,
it is software dependent and therefore not accepted by NARA for
preservation.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - Although timeliness of a monthly CD-ROM might be equivalent
to that of microfiche, it does not compare with the speed at
which
information could be made available through an electronic
information
service.
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
Technical Capabilities of Depository Libraries
Information currently available concerning the technical
capabilities
of depository libraries and the technical expertise of both
libraries
and their patrons is not substantive.
As more information in the FDLP is converted to electronic
formats
and discontinued in paper and/or microfiche, the number of, and
cost for, computer terminals, CD-ROM drives, printers, and other
equipment and software needed to access Government information
becomes increasingly relevant. Preliminary estimates from the
1995 Biennial Survey of depository libraries indicate that almost
7% would withdraw or consider withdrawing from the program if
it became exclusively electronic.
Attachment D-8
Task 8B: Case Study on the Congressional Serial Set
Attachment D-8
TASK 8B: Evaluation of the costs and benefits of
converting
Congressional Documents and Reports to electronic format for
distribution
through the Federal Depository Library Program, even though
currently
a substantial amount of the source data is not available to GPO
in machine readable form.
METHODOLOGY
The Report of the Serial Set Study Group was submitted
to the Public Printer on October 7, 1994. That report identified
the then current costs of producing the Serial Set (Documents
and Reports) and projected costs for four dissemination
alternatives,
including several electronic options. This report re-examines
those options in light of current GPO technical capabilities and
refined cost data. [Note: for the purpose of this task, the focus
will be on distribution to depository libraries, not on
distirbution
to International Exchange System partners (16) or posterity (22)
libraries.]
BACKGROUND
The U.S. Congressional Serial Set comprises a significant portion
of the historical record of the work of Congress. The legal basis
for the compilation, binding, numbering and distribution of the
bound Serial Set is contained in 44 U.S.C. §701, §719
and §738. The Serial Set currently includes Senate and House
documents, congressional committee reports, Presidential and
other
executive publications, treaty documents, and selected reports
of non-governmental organizations.
From June 13, 1994 to October 7, 1994, the Serial Set Study Group
examined alternate formats and cost reduction strategies for
issuing
the Serial Set (Documents and Reports). The study group consisted
of representatives from the Government Printing Office (GPO),
the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP), and the library community.
The final report from the Serial Set Study Group evaluated the
benefits and drawbacks of various dissemination alternatives.
Since the 1994 Report of the Serial Set Study Group, new cost
data has come to light. GPO's CD-ROM production capability and
the cost to produce discs now is very clearly defined, and shows
a significant reduction over the cost estimates projected in the
1994 Report. The 1994 Report based CD-ROM costs on the estimate
of producing the test disc for the Congressional Record CD-ROM
Pilot Project. The cost estimate to master the disc for that
project
was $212,900. More than half of that cost, $130,000, was to write
and test software. Current GPO CD-ROM production costs are much
lower.
GPO receives approximately 80% of reports from Congress in
machine
readable format and 20% as camera copy. Documents are more of
a problem; only 20% are received from Congress in machine
readable
format and 80% as camera copy. It is necessary either to obtain
electronic source files from Congress or convert the information
received in camera copy to machine readable form by scanning it
using software such as Adobe Acrobat Capture. Proofing and
correction
are necessary to assure accuracy of the data recognized by the
software. If the Acrobat software does not recognize portions
of the document, it converts what it cannot read to an image.
The images are non-searchable, making the entire document less
useful. The current resolution of these images is only 300 dots
per inch (d.p.i.), an inadequate resolution for effective use,
and the scanned images increase the file size substantially,
inhibiting
remote access. Scanning will remain necessary unless arrangements
can be made to receive all of this information in machine
readable
format from the Congress, or the organizations that submit the
information to Congress. Consequently, either a CD-ROM or online
version of the Serial Set is feasible only if Congress requires
that the component Documents and Reports not typeset at GPO are
provided to GPO in a usable electronic format.
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY DISSEMINATION
Every depository is eligible to receive both slip publications
and the bound Serial Set in either paper and/or microfiche
format.
Depository libraries that select the Serial Set in microfiche
(755) receive a paper copy of material too graphically intensive
(i.e. four color process) to be practical for conversion to
microfiche.
The 1994 Report of the Serial Set Study Group indicated that for
the 101st Congress, 463 libraries selected the bound Serial Set
and the slips in paper format (as well as 16 International
Exchange
and 22 posterity libraries). The current cost of dissemination
per session, based on the actual costs for the 101st Congress,
as reported in the 1994 Report of the Serial Set Study Group,
is $1,567,000. Most Documents and Reports also are available now
through GPO Access.
DISSEMINATION ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A
The 1994 Serial Set Study Group recommended that regional
libraries
receive the bound Serial Set in paper format and Documents and
Reports in a CD-ROM version. Selective libraries could choose
access to the slip documents through the GPO Access
service
in lieu of either paper or microfiche. They also would be able
to select either the bound Serial Set in paper or the Documents
and Reports CD-ROM.
Benefits
- - Depository libraries have a wide variety of formats to
select.
- - A phased-in change would minimize the effects of electronic
conversion on depository libraries.
- - CD-ROM is a good media for depository distribution. As a
read-only
media, CD-ROM assures the integrity of the data, and the
estimated
media life of a CD-ROM is 30 years or more. However, the
longevity
of the retrieval and display software frequently used on CD-ROM
titles is less certain due to dependency on specific computer
operating systems or other technology that may become obsolete
more rapidly than the physical media.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - Costs are difficult to quantify, but will be higher under
this
phased-in approach.
- - The discs will contain files that are not entirely
searchable.
This will be a continuing problem until GPO can negotiate with
Congress to receive all Documents and Reports in machine readable
format or scan and convert camera copy to machine readable
format.
Alternative B
Paper copies of the bound Serial Set would go to regional
libraries
and one library in each state without a regional (62 copies, down
from current 425). Libraries not eligible for paper copies would
be able to select the CD-ROM set. Reports and Documents discs
would be issued quarterly. Each CD-ROM would cumulate for the
session. The fourth CD-ROM would be a final version at the end
of the session. All depository libraries also would have the
option
of accessing Documents and Reports from GPO Access.
Benefits
- - Costs for CD-ROM and limited paper distribution would be
$391,996
per session, a total cost savings of $1,070,004 from current
costs
for paper distribution to selective depository libraries.
- - Depository access to Documents and Reports will be enhanced
if arrangements can be made for GPO to receive electronic copies
in a format that allows rapid conversion and upload.
- - CD-ROM is a good media for depository distribution. As a
read-only
media, CD-ROM assures the integrity of the data, and the
estimated
media life of a CD-ROM is 30 years or more. [See above.]
Disadvantages/Problems
- - Some materials are so graphically intensive or otherwise
structured
so as to make conversion to electronic formats difficult. Current
efforts to place Documents and Reports online are leaving off
some graphically intensive items. Eventually all Documents and
Reports will be added to the GPO Access service, but it
is taking longer to provide online access for these type of
information
products. For example, as of October 25, 1995, the following
Documents
and Reports were missing from GPO Access for the 104th
Congress:
Senate Reports: 3 of 153 or 1.96%
House Reports: 2 of 272 or 0.74%
House Documents: 17 of 119 or 14.29%
Senate Documents: 4 of 7 or 57.14%
Treaty Documents: 2 of 21 or 4.76%
Executive Reports: 0 of 9 or 0%
- - The CD-ROM set will contain files that are not entirely
searchable
unless all of the information is submitted initially in machine
readable form.
- - It is very difficult to ascertain conversion costs for the
current
effort to place Documents and Reports online, since all GPO WAIS
work, except GAO Reports, is charged to a single cost
"jacket."
However, GPO's production staff indicated that putting Documents
and Reports online is consuming a total of 6 hours a day for a
5 day work week.
Alternative C
The same provisions outlined in Alternative B would apply under
this alternative. However, GPO would provide paper copies for
any Documents and Reports too graphically intensive to
practically
convert to electronic format. To determine the impact of
continuing
this policy, the production records for the 100th and 101st
Congresses
were examined. Of the Documents and Reports issued, only 10
Serial
Set volumes (9.57%) from the entire 101st Congress, and 13 Serial
Set volumes (8.44%) from the 100th Congress were not microfilmed.
GPO sent microfiche dividers for those publications indicating
that the material would not be available on microfiche, and
depository
libraries subsequently received paper copies of those missing
microfiche publications.
Benefits
- - Libraries would receive paper copies of Documents and
Reports
too graphically intensive to convert to electronic format.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - Partial distribution in paper would cost $78,194 per
session
more than distribution solely in electronic format. This still
results in a total savings of $990,809 over current distribution
costs.
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
Depository Library Capabilities
The capability of depository libraries to deal with electronic
formats of Documents and Reports and other electronic
publications
in the FDLP should be studied in depth before converting a
significant
portion of depository material to electronic format.
Cost Shifting to Depository Libraries
Hardware and software needed to use electronic information is
costly for depository libraries. In addition, patrons usually
only have a limited number of workstations available to access
electronic information products, while different copies of paper
and microfiche material can be used by many patrons
simultaneously.
With electronic Government information products, depository
libraries
do save the processing and storage costs associated with
traditional
formats.
Permanent Access to Information
Depository libraries are concerned about the continued
availability
of depository publications. Paper and microfiche formats have
life spans that can be reasonably predicted. Electronic formats,
in rapidly changing formats, generally have less clearly defined
life spans.
Need for Machine Readable Information
GPO must explore methods of obtaining all Documents and Reports
from Congress in machine readable form in order to improve the
quality and usefulness of the electronic files, or establish a
cost-effective means to convert camera copy to electronic format.
With currently available software, neither a CD-ROM or online
version of the Serial Set is feasible unless Congress requires
that the component Documents and Reports not typeset at GPO are
provided to GPO in useable electronic format.
Attachment D-9
Task 8C: Case Study on the Department of Energy (DOE) Research
Reports
Attachment D-9
TASK 8C: Determination of the costs and the impact on
public
access to the Department of Energy (DOE) technical reports
through
the FDLP as the Office of Scientific and Technical Information
(OSTI) moves forward with its efforts to convert these reports
from microfiche to electronic format.
BACKGROUND
The Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical
Information (DOE/OSTI) is in the process of making the transition
from microfiche to electronic dissemination. DOE/OSTI is planning
a transition to managing information in an electronic environment
while retaining a variety of traditional, as well as electronic,
dissemination options. The electronic information management
transition
is scheduled for the end of FY 1996. Following the transition,
information delivery capabilities will include both traditional
and new media options.
The DOE/OSTI relationship to their laboratories' information has
been described as "centralized management of a decentralized
environment." DOE/OSTI, in partnership with DOE Program
Offices,
national laboratories, and other contractors, is working to
implement
electronic exchange and management of the Department's scientific
and technical information. Ultimately, DOE/OSTI expects to
receive
machinereadable data instead of printed reports. Documents
submitted
in print probably will be scanned to TIFF Group 4 (CCITT
Standard)
format. The image files for the reports may be linked to
announcement
records and made available on the DOE/OSTI Web site./1/ However,
final access plans for full text electronic information and
corresponding
bibliographic records have yet to be determined. Multiple
information
delivery options may be possible. Final plans for access and cost
recovery requirements are being studied. No cost recovery
structure
or free dissemination policy has been established yet, but
DOE/OSTI
may have to charge to recover costs.
/1/ DOE/OSTI has not yet made a final determination on access
options. At the time this
task force report was released it appeared as if access through
the
DOE/OSTI Web site
was most likely.
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY DISTRIBUTION
GPO and DOE/OSTI entered into an Interagency Agreement (IA) in
1984. The purpose of the agreement, which has been extended
through
September 30, 1997, is to provide depository libraries with
distribution
services for microfiche copies of DOE publications (reports).
Approximately 225 depository libraries receive DOE reports from
DOE/OSTI. An average DOE report title is selected by 135
depository
libraries.
Funding for the agreement is a shared responsibility of GPO and
DOE/OSTI. Following Section 1903 of Title 44, U.S.C., GPO pays
only the distribution costs for these publications because they
are not produced or procured through GPO. DOE/OSTI is reimbursed
by GPO for distribution costs from the Salaries and Expense
Appropriation,
which funds the operation of the Federal Depository Library
Program
(FDLP). DOE/OSTI absorbs the reproduction costs of the copies
of DOE reports they produce in microfiche format for depository
libraries.
The basic responsibilities of each agency under the IA are as
follows:
DOE/OSTI:
1) Distributes DOE reports in microfiche to the depository
libraries
using distribution profiles specified by GPO based on the
selections
of the libraries.
2) Fulfills depository library claims for missing publication(s).
3) Makes shipments to depository libraries at the most economical
rate for each shipment.
4) Provides announcements, abstracts and indexing services for
these reports, through both print media and DOE electronic
information
services. (GPO does not catalog these publications or list them
in the Monthly Catalog.)
GPO:
1) Pays the shipping costs for DOE publications.
2) Reimburses the negotiated cost for distribution and handling.
3) Provides to DOE/OSTI mailing lists of depository libraries
indicating which categories of reports the libraries are to
receive.
The following statistical and cost data is taken from fiscal
years
1993 through 1995. For each fiscal year, the total cost budgeted
for distribution of DOE microfiche, and the number of titles and
copies distributed is shown.
Fiscal Year Amount GPO Unique Average No.
Copies
GPO's Cost
Reimburses Reports Libraries
Shipped Per
Copy
DOE/OSTI Selecting
Each Title
1993 $146,000 13,900
147
2,043,963 $0.139
1994 $181,433 15,365
145
2,231,929 $0.123
1995 $196,208 17,117
135
2,317,335 $0.118
DOE reports produced in microfiche will be available to
depository
libraries throughout FY 1996. Beyond that time, as stated in the
Background, "No cost recovery structure or free
dissemination
policy has been established yet, but DOE/OSTI may have to charge
to recover costs." Resolution of this issue will be based
on further analysis of access options.
DISSEMINATION ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A
DOE/OSTI allows unlimited free access to depository libraries
through its Web site. No tangible information products
(microfiche,
hard copy, or CDROM) will be available through the FDLP.
Benefits
- - Results in an estimated cost savings to the Government of
at
least $200,000 annually; the amount that GPO formerly spent on
microfiche distribution. While DOE/OSTI may realize some
costsavings
from electronic dissemination, the projected savings probably
will not amount to the estimated $300,000 that DOE/OSTI formerly
spent on microfiche production for depository libraries. There
will be some offsetting cost increases associated with acquiring
new information technologies, information delivery, and providing
permanent access. Under this alternative, DOE/OSTI would absorb
such costs.
- - Additional libraries will be able to serve the public with
electronic
access to the DOE Web site. The selection of DOE reports will
be made on a justintime, rather than a justincase, basis.
Libraries
will obtain only those titles actually needed by their patrons.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - Savings to DOE from eliminating microfiche are offset, at
least
in part, by increased costs for such things as additional
computer
resources and user support. Usage by depository libraries would
involve some incremental expense for DOE/OSTI.
- - Depository libraries and users who access the DOE Web site
through
a modem, rather than a full Internet connection, will experience
difficulties downloading because of the size of the image files.
Alternative B
DOE/OSTI allows depository access to its Web site, with the
incremental
costs of FDLP usage paid from GPO's S&E appropriation. No
tangible information products (microfiche, hard copy, or CDROM)
will be available through the FDLP.
Benefits
- - As with Alternative A, additional libraries will be able to
serve the public with electronic access to the DOE Web site.
- - The selection of DOE reports will be made on a justintime,
rather
than a just incase, basis. Libraries will obtain only those
titles
actually needed by their patrons.
- - Results in an estimated cost savings to the Government of
at
least $200,000 annually; the amount that GPO formerly spent on
microfiche distribution. As in Alternative A, there will be some
offsetting cost increases associated with acquiring new
information
technologies, information delivery, and providing permanent
access.
Under this alternative, DOE/OSTI would recover a portion of such
costs from GPO for depository library use.
Disadvantages
- - The potential savings to GPO from eliminating microfiche
may
be offset substantially by fees paid to DOE/OSTI for depository
access. Unless an estimated or negotiated fee is established,
this would be more expensive to GPO than Alternative A.
- - DOE/OSTI and GPO would need to develop a cost-recovery fee
schedule
for this alternative. Although a negotiated amount could be less
problematic to administer, it might not accurately recover the
costs associated with depository library usage. However, the
administrative
burden of measuring FDLP usage might increase costs for both
DOE/OSTI
and GPO.
- - Depository libraries and users who access the DOE Web site
through
a modem, rather than a full Internet connection, will experience
difficulties downloading because of the size of the image files.
Alternative C
In lieu of access to the DOE Web site, the information could be
made available to depository libraries on CDROM discs that are
"packed" with reports in random order. GPO would
acquire
the DOE image files for material suitable for depository
distribution
and premaster the discs. In estimating costs for this
alternative,
it was assumed that no customized distribution would be
available,
and that each CD-ROM would be sent to 225 libraries, the number
which currently select DOE reports. DOE/OSTI estimates 125
reports
could be included on each CDROM. Assuming issuance of 15,000
reports
per year, this would require 120 discs. Costs to the FDLP would
include $40,500 for disc replication and additional costs of
approximately
$87,000 per year for premastering (46 hours of preparation @
$75/hr
+ $350 master disc = $725 per disc X 120 discs per year).
Benefits
- - Currently depository libraries are better equipped to
handle
CDROM titles than to provide Web access. The 1995 Biennial Survey
of Depository Libraries showed that 83% had a stand-alone
workstation
with CDROM drive available for their public patrons.
- - CDROM provides for permanent access to the reports in
locations
throughout the country, without dependence on the DOE Web site.
- - Downloading large image files locally from the CDROM set
will
not be as difficult as access to the DOE Web site through a
modem.
- - DOE computer resources do not experience additional load
from
depository library or general public access, since public users
can be directed to depository libraries.
- - CD-ROM is a good media for depository distribution. As a
read-only
media, CD-ROM assures the integrity of the data, and the
estimated
media life of a CD-ROM is 30 years or more. However, the
longevity
of the retrieval and display software frequently used on CD-ROM
titles is less certain due to dependency on specific computer
operating systems or other technology that may become obsolete
more rapidly than the physical media.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - CDROM access will not be as timely as direct access through
a Government electronic information service, but will be
comparable
in timeliness to the current microfiche distribution.
- - Additional costs will be incurred by GPO to create and
maintain
indexes to locate specific reports on the multidisc set.
- - As with the microfiche, depository libraries that do not
select
the DOE reports on CDROM will continue to depend on other
depository
libraries for access to individual DOE reports. Users will have
to go to one of the depository libraries that has the DOE reports
on CDROM to use the materials.
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
Permanent Public Access
There is no mechanism or policy in place to ensure permanent
public
access when dissemination is from an agency Web site. There is
no guarantee that if information is removed from a Web site the
information will remain available to the FDLP. GPO will seek to
establish arrangements under authority of the FDLP among program
partner organizations, including agencies, GPO, NARA, or
cooperating
depository libraries, to ensure permanent access to the
information
for depository library and public use.
Agency Missions and Constituencies
Many Web sites are created in order to serve an agency's primary
constituency. Use of these Web sites by the general public
through
the FDLP may strain an agency's equipment and tie up limited
access
channels, potentially blocking out constituents for whom the site
was created in the first place.
Possible Limitations or Restrictions on Depository Library
Access
Depository libraries need to be able to access agency Web sites
to serve multiple simultaneous users, particularly in
institutions
which have a high level of interest in scientific and technical
information among their users. Agency services should be designed
to permit multiple simultaneous users from the same depository
library, without such limitations as a single-user password.
Attachment D-10
Task 8D: Case Study on the Office of Technology Assessment
(OTA) Reports
Attachment D-10
TASK 8D: Identification of issues that must be addressed
when an agency no longer makes electronic information products
available at its Web site and the site contains information that
needs to remain available to the public through the Federal
Depository
Library Program (FDLP) and/or to be transferred to the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
BACKGROUND
The use of Web sites as a means to disseminate information is
becoming increasingly common among Government agencies. It is
also likely that agencies will begin to use their Web sites to
distribute information not available in any other format. These
Web sites are in essence forms of publication and therefore may
be Federal records as defined by 44 U.S.C. §3301. However,
the ease in which these sites can be established and modified
creates problems for both the Government Printing Office (GPO)
and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) which
share an interest in identifying and preserving the valuable
information
on these Web sites.
GPO and NARA have dissimilar, but complementary, goals to assure
public access for the full life cycle of this information. GPO
must address measures that ensure permanent public access for
information products on Internet sites that is within the scope
of the FDLP./1/ NARA focuses narrowly on that portion of the
information
which has historic value. Its goal is to assure preservation of
information./2/ Records schedules can serve as a tool for
identifying
these sites, but GPO and NARA will have to work together to
create
ways in which information can be transferred without added burden
to publishing agencies.
/1/ For purposes of this report, permanent access means that
Government information
products within the scope of the FDLP remain available for
continuous,
no fee public
access through the program. For emphasis, the phrase permanent
public access is
sometimes used with the same definition.
/2/ For purposes of this report, preservation means that
official
records of the Federal
Government, including Government information products made
available through the
FDLP, which have been determined to have sufficient historical or
other
value to
warrant being held and maintained in trust for future generations
of
Americans, are
retained by the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA).
In addition to any agency transfer of information products, NARA
accepts for deposit from GPO one copy of every information
product
cataloged through the Cataloging and Indexing Program and/or
distributed
by GPO through the FDLP. GPO transfers a full collection to NARA
after the completion of each fouryear Presidential term. These
procedures have resulted in the granting of preservation status
within NARA to all Government information products in the CIP
or FDLP as part of the definitive official collection of U. S.
Government publications. At present this status is extended to
all paper and microfiche publications and to all electronic
products
that are in formats acceptable to NARA for archival purposes (36
CFR 1228.188). Recently NARA has begun to accept for reference
purposes only, without accessioning for preservation, CD-ROM
titles
and other electronic products that are software dependent and,
therefore, not in archival format./3/
/3/ NARA accepts such materials for reference purposes only
and
maintains them for
public use so long as the technology and software permit.
However,
NARA does not
take extraordinary measures to ensure long-term access or
preservation
of the content,
and such a transfer does not meet the publishing agency's
obligation for
transfer of the
information to NARA for preservation.
Issues concerning nearterm, permanent access to, and preservation
of, information on agency Internet sites were brought to the
forefront
by the closing of the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) on
September 29, 1995. OTA's Web site, OTA Online, included a
catalog
of all the reports produced by OTA from 1972 to 1995, ASCII text
files of the 1994 reports, and both ASCII and Adobe Acrobat
Portable
Document Format (PDF) files of the 1995 reports. The 1995 reports
include some reports that will not be published formally. OTA
made arrangements to mount information from OTA Online on GPO's
Web site. The final transfer to GPO is scheduled for Summer 1996.
Since November 1, 1995, the OTA Web site also has been mirrored
by the National Academy of Sciences and the Woodrow Wilson Public
and International Affairs at Princeton University.
OTA also has a contract to scan the texts of all their reports
dating from 1972 and convert them to PDF. The PDF files will be
packaged on a set of five CD-ROM discs, along with much of the
information available via OTA Online and some additional
historical
material. The CDROM collection will be distributed to depository
libraries and sold through GPO.
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY DISTRIBUTION
Most of the OTA information available in electronic format is
available in other formats through the FDLP. The only exceptions
are the reports and/or summaries that still are being completed
and will not be published formally.
DISSEMINATION ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A
GPO will mount the information from OTA on its own Web site for
depository library access. When available, both ASCII and PDF
files will be offered. The CDROM collection of OTA reports will
be distributed to depository libraries upon completion.
Benefits
- - Permanent public access to the information is maintained
through
the FDLP.
- - A variety of methods are available for accessing OTA
information.
- - At the present time more depository libraries are equipped
with
CDROM drives than have Web access for the public.
- - CD-ROM is a good media for depository distribution. As a
read-only
media, CD-ROM assures the integrity of the data, and the
estimated
media life of a CD-ROM is 30 years or more. However, the
longevity
of the retrieval and display software frequently used on CD-ROM
titles is less certain due to dependency on specific computer
operating systems or other technology that may become obsolete
more rapidly than the physical media.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - Some OTA information is distributed to depository libraries
in
three different formats: paper, CDROM, and through the GPO Web
site.
- - GPO incurs additional costs for maintaining the information
on
its Web site. OTA is responsible only for the costs related to
the initial mounting of the information.
- - Reports that have been scanned are not entirely searchable.
Although
the reports will be scanned using Adobe Acrobat Capture, which
will convert them to machine readable form, nonrecognizable text
will be retained as images. In addition, due to time constraints,
the scanned reports will not be reviewed.
- - The PDF format is software dependent and therefore not an
acceptable
format for preservation by NARA. However, NARA could accept the
CD-ROM set from GPO for reference purposes as part of the
definitive
official collection of U. S. Government publications./4/
/4/ When NARA accepts materials in software-dependent formats
for convenience of
reference, NARA maintains them for public use as long as the
technology and software
permit. However, NARA does not take extraordinary measures to
ensure long-term
access to, or preservation of, the material. Furthermore, such a
transfer
does not meet
the publishing agency's obligation for transfer of the
information to
NARA for
preservation unless it also includes the software to migrate the
information to a
software-independent format, so that NARA can preserve it on an
archival media.
Alternative B
The OTA CDROM set will be distributed to depository libraries.
After a predetermined period of time, OTA information will be
removed from the GPO Web site.
Benefits
Permanent public access to the information is maintained through
the FDLP.
More depository libraries are equipped with CDROM drives than
have Web access for the public.
- - CD-ROM is a good media for depository distribution. As a
read-only
media, CD-ROM assures the integrity of the data, and the
estimated
media life of a CD-ROM is 30 years or more. [See above.]
Dual distribution in electronic format is eliminated.
Disadvantages/Problems
Scanned reports contain nonsearchable portions and are not
reviewed.
The CDROM set cannot be accessioned by NARA for preservation
because
it uses the PDF softwaredependent format. [See above.]
Public access to the reports is available only at or through
depository
libraries, although as mentioned, there are two other private
Web sites that will be providing this information for at least
a period of time.
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED (FDLP)
Archival Responsibilities
Whenever possible, GPO will coordinate with NARA to transfer
electronic
information products distributed to depository libraries or held
by GPO for remote access to NARA for preservation. If GPO makes
agency electronic information products available for remote
access,
then the information becomes part of GPO's records and GPO will
be responsible for its disposition (or transfer) to NARA as part
of the official collection of Government information products
listed in the Monthly Catalog or distributed through the
FDLP. If an agency has maintained its electronic Government
information
products and GPO points to the agency electronic information
service
for the FDLP, it will be the legal responsibility of the
individual
agency to transfer their information products to NARA.
GPO and NARA will need to determine whether statutory changes
are needed to clarify each agencies' respective roles and
responsibilities
for permanent access and preservation of electronic Government
information products.
Life Cycle of Electronic Government Information Products
GPO and NARA will need to define a life cycle for electronic
Government
information products, beginning with the original document as
an electronic file and ending with its final disposition. It is
NARA's responsibility to determine whether an electronic
Government
information product warrants continued preservation by the
Government.
This responsibility is distinct from GPO's responsibility to
provide
permanent public access to the same information through the FDLP.
In accordance with its responsibility for assuring permanent
access,
GPO will assume such costs as data preparation for mounting,
maintenance
and storage, as well as ongoing costs necessary to minimize
deterioration
and assure technological currency. GPO also will assume
responsibility
for coordinating a distributed system that provides continuous,
permanent public access to Government information products within
the scope of the program. This will require coordination with
all of the institutional program stakeholders: information
producing
agencies, GPO, depository libraries, and NARA.
Format Standards
GPO expects to receive electronic information provided by
agencies
in many formats. However, GPO needs to determine a small number
of "recommended standard formats" for the dissemination
of electronic Government information products to depository
libraries
and remote access through the GPO Access services. It is
anticipated that certain electronic source files provided to GPO
by agencies will not lend themselves readily to dissemination
or remote access in their original formats. Whenever it is
possible
and cost-effective to do so, GPO will reformat the information
into formats more suitable for dissemination and permanent
access.
GPO will offer all electronic Government information products
in its custody to NARA in accordance with the approved GPO record
disposition schedules. This does not imply that GPO will assume
the responsibility of converting this information for NARA if
the file format used for permanent access through GPO
Access
is not suitable for the preservation requirements of NARA. It
is expected that GPO may have electronic information that will
not be accepted by NARA for preservation because of file formats.
GPO and NARA must seek to coordinate their efforts to assure that
format standards used by GPO for permanent public access to
electronic
information are, or can be converted easily to, formats
acceptable
to NARA.
Software Dependent Information
Some electronic Government information products produced by
agencies
in particular formats (such as certain types of spreadsheet
files)
are embedded with file structures that only have intrinsic value
when used with particular software. If this information is
converted
to another generic format, such as ASCII, it loses value for the
user. This is a major issue for GPO, which will need to make this
information available through the FDLP, and NARA, which currently
will not accept electronic information that is software
dependent.
ARCHIVAL BACKGROUND
The OTA Web site contains two main types of information: 1)
Organizational
Structure and Members, and 2) Publications. The organizational
structure, lists of Technology Assessment Board (TAB) and
Technology
Assessment Advisory Council (TAAC) members, can be found in the
annual reports of OTA, which are scheduled for permanent
retention
under N1444941. Additional information on the members' work with
OTA is scheduled as permanent in TAB/TAAC Member Files. The
original
site also contained information on ongoing projects, how to
contact
the staff, different electronic methods of obtaining
publications,
and links to other Government sites. Some of these are no longer
appropriate since the agency has ceased to exist.
All of the information in the OTA Web site has been scheduled
in a variety of different records covered by different items in
the schedule. However, the schedule does not directly apply to
the OTA Web site. The OTA Web site can be viewed as another
"publication"
used by OTA to disseminate information. The existence of the Web
site, as well as its content, provide evidence of the image OTA
wanted to portray to the public and the work it accomplished.
Even though the information exists, in bits and pieces, among
the records of OTA (records covered by the schedule), by bringing
this information together, and "packaging" it in a
different
way, OTA has created a different record that is not covered in
the schedule. Thus, the OTA Web site should be scheduled as an
item under the office that manages and maintains the Web site.
In FY 1995, the National Archives, Center for Electronic Records
(Center), scheduled and appraised the ASCII text files of the
1994 and 1995 reports (N1444941). These ASCII files were
appraised
as temporary because they do not contain the graphs, charts, and
photographs which are integral to the publication, thus
diminishing
their value. At present, the Center for Electronic Records will
not accession files that are dependent on any specific software
package. This is referred to as software dependence. This
precludes
the Center from accessioning the reports produced using ADOBE
software. For these reasons, NARA has chosen to maintain the
print
formats of all the reports produced by OTA. However, NARA will
accession the ASCII text file for the Catalog of Publications,
1972-1995 (N1444961). This file is used to upload the Catalog
onto
the OTA Web site. In the case of OTA electronic information, NARA
will accession only the ASCII file used to create the Catalog
of Publications, 1972-1995. Since OTA is able to send the file
in the software independent format specified in 36 CFR 1228.188,
OTA will transfer the file directly to NARA, Center for
Electronic
Records.
NARA also will receive electronic versions of the OTA reports
in three different formats: ASCII, Hypertext Markup Language
(HTML),
and PDF. These files will not be accessioned by NARA, but will
be used to examine technical issues of the different formats.
However, NARA may retain for a limited time the HTML and/or PDF
format as an extra copy for convenience of reference. HTML files
are essentially ASCII files that contain text which is
"tagged"
using a standardized language. HTML was created as a standardized
way to format documents, so that they could be read and
interpreted
by a variety of different computer platforms. These commands are
written using ASCII characters. Any word processing software
package
can be used to tag a document with HTML commands. However, there
are software packages which were developed to "markup"
documents with HTML commands. If a tagged document is printed
out the HTML commands are visible along with the text of the
document.
Therefore these files are software independent and can be treated
as ASCII files. If needed, PDF files also can be converted to
ASCII.
Despite the fact that all these files are or can be transferred
into software independent files, the original reports contain
graphics, which cannot be software independent. PDF files contain
graphics and the HTML files contain links to graphics. That is,
the graphics "reside" elsewhere, not in the tagged
document.
APPRAISAL CONSIDERATIONS
What information is in the Home Page, and which files (and
addresses)
does it link to? What is the structure/"hierarchy" of
the site?
There is a distinction between a Home Page and a Web site. A Home
Page is the first "page" of a site. It usually contains
an introduction or welcome statement. The Home Page provides
links
to other pages. There are two main types of links: a) links to
other files (pages) in the same location, and b) links to other
Web sites. A Web site can be described as the sum of a Home Page
and all the files that are linked to it. It is important to
determine
which file is the Home Page and trace how other pages are linked
to the Home Page and other pages. The structure of the page can
provide evidence as to what the agency feels its primary mission
is and how it wants to portray itself to the general public.
Need to determine criteria/"draw lines" to limit the
"links" that will be appraised.
In appraising a Web site it is necessary to examine the Home Page
and the files that are linked. However, the links to other sites
should be appraised with the records of the agencies that
maintain
those sites. If there is a link to a site which maintains
information
for the site being appraised, and the agency (of the records
being
appraised) is responsible for the content, then that particular
link should be considered for appraisal. This does not mean that
a whole new site is to be appraised along with the first site.
A precedent for this can be found in N1149951P, Item 20.8, VAX
Client Server, memo from NSXA to NIR dated January 9, 1995
"[Electronic
Photocomposition Division (EPD)] uploads the publications, which
they receive on tape or disk. EPD is not responsible for the
creation
or content of the publications. The individual agencies that
send the publications to be are uploaded into the system are
responsible
for all the data and information. For these reasons, the files
in the VAX Client Server should not be appraised as GPO
records..."
Which files within a site should be accessioned? Do all the files
need to be brought in? Is it adequate to simply document that
a particular link contained certain information which can be
obtained
among the other records of the agency? If links to other sites,
document the name and agency which maintained the site?
The determination of specific files in a Web site that should
be accessioned and which links should be documented or appraised
must be done on a case by case basis.
APPRAISAL ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A
Accession the records of the persons or committees responsible
for maintaining the Web site. The records of these persons or
committees should reflect the content and structure of the site.
In fact, these files serve as documentation of the electronic
files posted on the Web site. Thus, the information that appeared
on the Web site could be reconstructed. In this case, we would
be documenting the existence of a Web site without actually
accessioning
the information on the Web site.
Benefits
This approach avoids the duplication of information NARA would
be accessioning. The information provided by the persons or
committees
in charge of the site, would provide researchers with evidence
of the information which was posted and they would then search
out the desired documents from the records of that agency. This
would be especially true of larger agencies which strictly
control
the information on their Web sites.
Disadvantages/Problems
Not all agencies have a centralized place where this information
can be found. In smaller agencies, the Web sites might be
constructed
and maintained by interns or interested personnel, yet their
records
may not provide adequate information on the content and structure
of the Web site.
This option also ignores the possibility that in the future,
information
posted on the Web site might not appear in any other format. In
these cases, it is necessary not only to appraise the records
of those maintaining the files, but the files on the Web site
itself.
Alternative B
Accession all the files within the Web site. These could be
viewed
through a browser. However, it is important to note that
different
browsers servers will "interpret" the HTML commands
differently. Also,
most Web sites contain links to graphics and other sites,
therefore
those links or graphics would not be functional. In this case,
the links can be documented by identifying the institution
maintaining
that site and providing a brief description of the content of
those sites.
Benefits
The Web site can be preserved in a fashion through which
researchers
will be able to "navigate." Researchers also would get
a better idea of the original structure of the site.
Disadvantages/Problems
At the moment graphics cannot be preserved, an integral part of
most Web sites.
The sheer size of some sites and the number of links that must
be accounted for make them difficult to document.
The possibility exists for duplicating information that already
exists among the records of the agency.
Alternative C
Accession selected files from the Web site, as well as preserving
the records of the persons, offices, or committees maintaining
the site. Valuable files, which may not exist in any other format
or are more valuable in electronic format, can be preserved.
These
files could be either requested from the agency without HTML
markup
(in plain ASCII) or NARA could maintain the markup.
Benefits
This approach ensures the preservation of unique files or
valuable
information without the burden of accessioning the whole site.
Disadvantages/Problems
In accessioning select files, it is important to document the
context. The documentation package would include technical
information,
but also information of the content of the site where the
selected
file was originally placed.
Web sites are always changing. Files can be added, updated, and
deleted easily. This poses a problem for accessioning files in
a Web site. The solution proposed in the "Preserving Digital
Information: Draft Report of the Task Force on Archiving of
Digital
Information" (August 24, 1995) is to take "periodic
snapshots" of the pages in a site. Ultimately, the agency
is responsible for scheduling the files in their Web site. NARA
can work with the agency to develop a strategy for accessioning
files which constantly are being changed.
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
Identifying Information for Permanent Access and Preservation
How can Web sites with valuable information be identified?
Federal
agencies are creating a large number of Web sites. Once agencies
are no longer interested in maintaining that information, there
is no mechanism in place to provide permanent access to that
information
for future users through the FDLP. As Federal records, the Web
sites must be scheduled along with other agency records.
Therefore,
records schedules could serve as a tool to identify valuable
Government
information on Web sites and to assure its preservation by NARA.
These schedules may also facilitate the identification of
electronic
Government information products within the scope of the FDLP for
which permanent access should be arranged.
Transfer of Information to GPO and NARA
Once identified, what information from the Web sites should be
transferred? As explained earlier, GPO and NARA have different
responsibilities and goals, so each agency will have to decide
what information on agency Web sites is within the scope of its
responsibility. Sometimes both agencies will be interested in
the same information. GPO is responsible for providing Government
information products for current and permanent public access
through
the FDLP. Since NARA is interested in maintaining indefinitely
information with historic value, it needs to apply criteria for
determining which information from agency Web sites warrants
preservation
by the Government.
How should this information be transferred to GPO and/or NARA
without added burden to the agencies? GPO and NARA will have to
work together to identify ways in which agencies can transfer
the information without added burden.
Permanent Access to Electronic Government Information Products
If an agency decides to discontinue access through their Web site
to Government information products with the scope of the FDLP,
GPO has a responsibility to obtain those information products
and arrange for their permanent access through the FDLP. What
is the most costeffective and useful method for maintaining
permanent
access to electronic Government information products available
from agency Web sites or other Government electronic information
services? The migration of electronic Government information
products
over a period of years can be very costly. If information
products
already have been distributed in paper, microfiche or CDROM, does
it make sense to provide permanent access to the information
through
a Government electronic information service?
Differences Between the Life Cycle of Government Information
Products
in Electronic vs. Traditional Formats
How is the life cycle for electronic Government information
products
different from that of traditional formats like paper and
microfiche?
What part of the information dissemination process must be
changed
in order to ensure permanent access through the FDLP and the
preservation
by NARA of information on agency Web sites?
Attachment D-11
Task 9: Evaluation of Inclusion in Electronic Formats of
Materials Not Traditionally Included in the FDLP in Either
Paper or Microfiche
Attachment D-11
TASK 9: Evaluation of issues surrounding inclusion in
electronic
formats of materials not traditionally included in the FDLP in
either paper or microfiche. Examples includes Securities and
Exchange
Commission EDGAR data (Task 9A, Attachment D-12), Federal
District
and Circuit Court opinions (Task 9B, Attachment D-13), patents,
military specifications, Congressional Research Service reports,
and a variety of other scientific and technical information
(primarily
contractor reports).
BACKGROUND
Government information products which have not been included in
the depository library program in "traditional," or
nonelectronic, formats come from all three branches of
government.
Two categories were specifically identified under this task for
separate case studies: filings with the SEC (now available
through
the EDGAR system) (Task 9A, Attachment D-12) and Federal District
and Circuit Court Opinions (Task 9B, Attachment D-13). Other
categories
studied included patents; military specifications; Congressional
Research Service publications; and scientific/technical reports
from several agencies. These materials have not been included
in the FDLP for a variety of reasons, but as publishing agencies
migrate to electronic dissemination methods, it may be possible
to expand public access to these materials through the FDLP.
This task force report covers a very wide variety of materials
from many sources, and expanded access to these materials might
involve more than one solution. The alternatives outlined below
should not be considered mutually exclusive. A combination of
alternatives might address varying agency and FDLP needs in the
most costeffective way. Alternative F was submitted after the
original task force report was completed, and is provided here
as an additional alternative available for some materials not
currently in the FDLP, but it has not received the same
opportunity
for analysis and public comment as the others.
1) Patents
The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) disseminates information
through a combination of PTO search facilities, Patent and
Trademark
Depository Libraries, and commercial dissemination from private
vendors who purchase bulk data from the PTO at marginal cost.
Bibliographic descriptions and some full text are available in
electronic formats. The patent database was a major component
of the two year federallyfunded Internet Town Hall, a cooperative
project of Internet Multicasting Service and New York University
which provided free Internet access. Since the end of that
project,
the PTO has been providing direct Internet access to the
descriptive
database. The plan is to offer searchable bibliographic text for
approximately 20 years of patents. This free system will not
include
the full text of the patents.
The PTO called an open meeting for December 15, 1995, to:
[G]ain input into how it can maximize the potential of its
information
dissemination program. In view of technology changes, revisions
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A130, and
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 10413), the PTO
will review existing policies and ... prepare a comprehensive
information dissemination plan.
At the same time, initiatives from the administration and the
Congress are proposing major changes in the PTO. In a press
release
September 14, 1995, Vice President Gore announced that the PTO
would be transformed into a "performancedriven,
customeroriented
organization." While the impact on information dissemination
is not spelled out, the announcement refers to commercial
business
practices and points out that the PTO is "fully funded by
user fees."
2) Military Specifications and Standards
Military specifications and standards are not yet available, full
text, in electronic format. They are offered free for delivery
by mail from the Navy Print on Demand System (NPODS). They may
be ordered by "TeleSpecs", a system which takes
automated
telephone orders from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday.
It is not a fax-on-demand system, but orders are mailed to
requesters
the next day. Customers also may buy a subscription to an
automatic
distribution service. This organization also offers paid
subscriptions
to an electronic information service (most current) and CDROM
version (with bimonthly updates) which include descriptions of
military specifications and standards and some other databases.
Both services are relatively new and are priced for cost
recovery.
3) Congressional Research Service (CRS) Studies
These comprehensive studies from the Library of Congress are very
useful to the public but are not available through the FDLP,
although
the Major Studies and Issue Briefs are obtained and sold by a
private vendor. There has been considerable interest in the
depository
library community in having CRS studies available to the general
public. However, CRS is prohibited by Congress from any public
distribution of their material, unless explicitly authorized by
their congressional oversight committees. CRS is making their
reports increasingly available to Congress in electronic format
via CAPNET, the secure Capitol Hill network, but access is
limited
to congressional offices. Direct public dissemination through
the FDLP would require a change in the current policy by
Congress.
4) Scientific and Technical Information
While a great deal of scientific and technical information,
including
contractor reports, is distributed through the FDLP, there is
also a great deal which is not in the program. Two agencies have
been used in this task as representative of the issues for
agencies,
the GPO, and libraries.
4a) Technical Reports and Guidelines from the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)
The EPA is a decentralized agency in which a number of offices
and research centers produce or contract for technical reports.
While many of these reports are provided to GPO for FDLP
distribution,
many others are not. Some staff members apparently believe that
providing copies of documents to the National Technical
Information
Service (NTIS), or providing a single copy of NTIS diazo
microfiche
to GPO, satisfies information dissemination requirements of 44
U.S.C. Chapter 19. This is a misconception not unique to EPA.
Some EPA CDROM titles are provided to depository libraries, but
others are not. The EPA is making major efforts to provide
information
through an electronic information service, and this provides
additional
opportunities for depository libraries to participate in its
dissemination
efforts. No limitations on public access to reports available
through the electronic information service have been identified,
although many EPA reports in traditional formats are sold by
NTIS.
EPA uses GPO's Federal Bulletin Board to disseminate some of its
information products, thus meeting depository responsibilities.
For example, an important element of EPA regulation is the
development
of Environmental Test Methods and Guidelines. EPA's solution to
public access includes announcement of the availability of draft
guidelines in the Federal Register. Proposed guidelines
are released on the EPA gopher. Final guidelines are posted on
GPO's Federal Bulletin Board. GPO thus can provide the files for
downloading, and also can sell paper copies to users who prefer
that format. EPA staff has suggested that there would be a demand
for compilations of these materials, on electronic formats such
as CDROM. These compilations could be created by GPO from agency
source files.
4b) Technical Reports from the Department of Defense
(DOD)
The Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) maintains
collections
of three types of technical reports: classified; unclassified
with limitation of export; and unclassified, unlimited. DTIC
maintains
a Technical Reports bibliographic database for both of the
unclassified
categories of reports. The database is available for purchase
from DTIC in CDROM or through a Government electronic information
service.
Public access is not provided to these products; they are only
available to Government agency personnel, Government contractors,
and potential Government contractors, who register with DTIC.
The reason for this restriction is that the databases contain
the "unclassified with limitation of export" category,
although DTIC reports that the vast majority of reports fall in
the "unclassified, unlimited" category.
DTIC forwards copies of all unlimited, unclassified reports to
the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) for public
sale,
but most are not provided to depository libraries. The NTIS
bibliographic
database, including descriptions of these DTIC reports, is
available
for purchase through private vendors on CDROM or through
electronic
information services.
DTIC is moving towards electronic storage of data and documents.
The Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) is an integrated
system which is moving DTIC from a manual, microfichebased system
to automated information management and document delivery. The
system involves document scanning and optical storage. It can
generate microfiche copies, since many DTIC customers still use
microfiche. While the program includes a limited Web trial, DTIC
probably will not provide public access to technical reports on
their Web site because of security restrictions, and because
technical
resources must be devoted to serving primary clientele.
DOD is committed to its DefenseLINK Web site to link and point
to all DOD home pages and a growing variety of unclassified
material
which is becoming available in electronic form. Some of the
materials
available as searchable databases on the Web also are sold in
CDROM format. The DOD must adhere to restrictions on distribution
of information which is classified or limited, and also must
assure
that its resources are available to its primary clientele such
as Government employees and contractors. Perhaps a restructured
FDLP could expand public access to such information by providing
a separate source for unclassified electronic information
products,
one which does not place additional demands on DTIC's own
technical
resources.
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY DISTRIBUTION
This task addressed materials which are not in the program in
traditional formats (paper, CDROM, microfiche or floppy
diskette).
Each of these categories of materials is distributed to its
primary
audience through Government or cooperative channels, but not
through
the FDLP. The Patent and Trademark Office supports its own
reading
rooms and depository library program; military specifications
are available on demand without charge. Scientific and technical
reports are distributed directly from the originating agencies
and secondarily through NTIS. Because of the enormous volume in
most of these collections, the cost of depository distribution
in paper or microfiche would be large, and distribution would
also present a significant processing and storage burden on
depository
libraries. GPO's decision has been to direct the limited
resources
available for support of depository printing and distribution
to materials which do not have such specialized audiences and
distribution programs. As these materials become available
electronically,
it may be possible to use the FDLP as an additional channel for
public access.
DISSEMINATION ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A
Agency information is available through the Internet to the
general
public, from the agency itself, at no cost to the user. The GPO
Pathway locator services will direct users, including depository
libraries, to the agency site.
Benefits
- - Government information products which have not been in the
FDLP
are available without charge to the public in electronic form.
- - Libraries can access selected information products on
demand,
without the burden of processing and maintaining large
collections.
- - Minimal costs are incurred by GPO for inclusion of new
information
products in the FDLP.
- - The GPO Pathway locator services enhance public access to
agency
information.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - Depository libraries without Internet capabilities cannot
access
the information.
- - Delivery of graphics-inclusive contents like specifications
and patents may require considerable communications band-width
and highend computers at the user end.
- - Public access may place additional loads on agency
computing
and telecommunication resources, as well as on support services,
and may present security problems.
- - Duration of the availability of the information product is
uncertain
unless GPO can establish a formal arrangement with the agency
to ensure permanent access either at the agency site or at a site
under the administrative control of the FDLP.
Alternative B
Agency information products are available electronically for a
fee. The GPO will negotiate an agreement with the agency to pay
the costs for depository library access. The agreement may
include
limitations on numbers of users or on remote access via library
networks, but will not include any copyright-like restrictions
on the use or reuse of the information product. The GPO Pathway
locator services will lead depository libraries to the agency
site.
Benefits
- - Information products which have not been in the FDLP are
available
without charge to the public, at or through depository libraries,
in electronic form.
- - Libraries can access selected information products on
demand,
without the burden of processing and maintaining large
collections.
- - The GPO Pathway locator services enhance access to agency
information
products.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - GPO incurs new costs for access to information products
which
have not been in the program previously.
- - Depository libraries without Internet capabilities cannot
access
the information.
- - Public access may place additional loads on agency
computing
and telecommunication resources, as well as on support services,
and may present security problems.
- - Agencies or distributors may see free public access through
the FDLP as a threat to revenue generation.
Alternative C
GPO establishes a database of information products from agency
sites which is tailored to the FDLP. Agencies provide electronic
source files, or GPO downloads source files from agency sites.
Benefits
- - Government information products which have not been in the
FDLP
are available without charge to the public in electronic form.
- - Agencies are relieved of security problems related to
unauthorized
access to classified or nongovernment information products on
their primary sites.
- - Agency computer and telecommunication resources do not
experience
additional loads from depository library or general public
access,
as agencies may direct public users to FDLP sites.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - GPO incurs new and essentially duplicative costs for access
to information products which have not been in the program
previously.
GPO costs include downloading, reformatting, search mechanisms,
storage, and permanent access.
- - Provision must be made for updating dynamic data as it
changes
on the agency site.
Alternative D
Information from Government electronic information services is
made available to depository libraries in CDROM format instead
of through direct connections to these services. Agencies produce
CDROM titles, with GPO riding orders for the cost of copies for
FDLP distribution, whether or not discs are produced or procured
through GPO.
Benefits
- - Government information products which have not been in the
FDLP
previously are available without charge to the public in
electronic
form.
- - Currently, many depository libraries are better equipped to
handle CDROM than Government electronic information services.
- - CD-ROM is a good media for depository distribution. As a
read-only
media, CD-ROM assures the integrity of the data, and the
estimated
media life of a CD-ROM is 30 years or more. However, the
longevity
of the retrieval and display software frequently used on CD-ROM
titles is less certain due to dependency on specific computer
operating systems or other technology that may become obsolete
more rapidly than the physical media.
- - Agency computer resources do not experience additional load
from depository or public access.
- - Agency revenue streams from user fees are protected.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - GPO and/or agencies incur new costs for access to
information
products which have not been in the program previously.
- - Large report collections on CDROM may require a large
number
of disks, creating storage and access pressures in depository
libraries.
- - CDROM is not as timely for current information as direct
access
through an electronic information service, and does not permit
dynamic updating of changing information.
Alternative E
Information products from Government electronic information
services
are made available to depository libraries in CDROM format
instead
of through direct connections to these services. GPO obtains
agency
source files or downloads files from agency sites, and creates
CDROM collections for FDLP distribution.
Benefits
- - Government information products which have not been in the
FDLP
becomes available without charge to the public in electronic
form.
- - Currently, depository libraries are better equipped to
handle
CDROM than Government electronic information services.
- - Use of information is facilitated by GPO's creating discs
with
consistent search interfaces.
- - CDROM provides for permanent public access in libraries
throughout
the country.
- - Agency computer resources do not suffer additional strain
from
depository or public access.
- - Agency revenue streams from user fees are protected.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - GPO incurs new costs for access to information products
which
have not been in the program previously.
- - Large report collections on CDROM may require a large
number
of discs, creating storage and access pressures in libraries.
- - CDROM is not as timely for current information as direct
access
through Government electronic information services, and does not
permit dynamic updating of changing information.
Alternative F (NTIS Proposal for Depository Library
Access)
Note: This alternative was proposed by NTIS after the
completion
of the original task force report, so it has not received the
same opportunity for analysis and public comment as the other
alternatives. While it proposes a program which would not be part
of the FDLP, it does identify an option for providing public
access
to federallyfunded scientific, technical and engineering
publications
from the NTIS collections, so it is included here as additional
information for the FDLP Study. The description of this
alternative
and many of the benefits and disadvantages/problems were
identified
by NTIS and are presented in its own words; some of the benefits
and disadvantages/problems were identified by the task force and
GPO staff, based on earlier input from the library community.
NTIS has proposed a means to assure the American public access
to information in its collection for free through the depository
libraries without a subsidy from taxpayer funds. Access will be
provided to electronic image files of documents as they become
available to NTIS. The proposal covers access to image files of
documents of scientific, technical and related business nature
that would be available to the depository libraries under the
current program in paper or microfiche formats as well as access
to a wide range of materials that have previously been accessible
to the depository libraries only through the NTIS sales program.
The initial proposal does not include NTIS CDROM titles or
feebased
electronic information services available through FedWorld, but
it would provide easy and immediate access to a substantial
number
of fugitive documents not previously available to the FDLP.
NTIS plans to initiate a pilot with approximately 20 depository
libraries by early summer. Pilot participants will have access
at no charge to the full electronic bibliographic records of the
incoming NTIS document stream and will be able to request
downloads
of all documents available in electronic format. The purpose of
the test is to establish procedures and appropriate operating
protocols for complete lights out, 24 hours a day, seven days
a week operation. Expected duration of the test period will be
approximately nine months, at which time a decision on the full
extent of access to the depository system should be possible.
NTIS will provide depository libraries with access on demand to
the electronic images of federally funded scientific, technical
and engineering publications in its collection at no charge, as
often as needed, and without any time limitation in exchange for
a simple agreement from each library not to release the
electronic
file outside the library or use it for commercial purposes. No
restrictions of any kind are placed on the use or redissemination
of documents printed from these electronic files. Interlibrary
exchange of these paper or microfiche documents would be expected
to proceed as they currently do with depository library
materials.
Access will be provided through a search system with no charges
to the library for anything it downloads for printing. Files can
be printed locally if the library has a printer with PostScript
print capability. The library or the user would absorb print
costs
but could make as many paper copies as needed.
Currently Defense Department publications are entering the NTIS
collection in image format. Several other science agencies are
making rapid progress on migrating to electronic imaging and NTIS
is within months of scanning most items it receives in paper.
Virtually everything entering the NTIS system should be in
electronic
image format within a year. NTIS expects to intake about 100,000
documents during this fiscal year.
Benefits
- - NTIS would make Government information products that have
not
been included the FDLP available for free access in local
communities.
- - No appropriated funds will be required since NTIS will
absorb
all costs of storage and access as a business expense paid for
out of user fees from the NTIS system as a whole and not by the
taxpayers.
- - A large class of fugitive documents - those from DOD -
would
immediately become available to the public, and NTIS working
relationships
with other major federal producers of technical information
products
in electronic form ensure the future availability of a more
comprehensive
collection of federal technical information.
- - Libraries could access selected information products on
demand
without the burden of storing or indexing large collections or
dealing with individual agencies.
- - Depository libraries could provide an advertising vehicle
for
NTIS services by increasing public awareness.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - Libraries must resist the temptation to release electronic
files
of these materials on the World Wide Web. Such a release would
destroy NTIS' own revenue generating capabilities and eliminate
funding to support free access in the future. NTIS' restrictions
apply only to the document image files themselves and should in
no way interfere with patrons ability to search and locate
documents
they need.
- - Downloading and printing of large PostScript files can
require
considerable Internet band-width as well as highend equipment
at the library.
- - Depository libraries would have to accept copyrightlike
restrictions
on the use and reuse of materials obtained from NTIS through the
FDLP and would be put in the position of enforcing those
restrictions.
There is a risk to NTIS' market for these publications if library
patrons (some of whom may be resellers) are not satisfied with
the restrictions imposed by NTIS and do not comply with them.
- - Compliance with NTIS' restrictions may necessitate that use
of the NTIS service be restricted to mediated searches (those
conducted by depository library staff). This would eliminate
selfservice
at public access workstations and make it more labor intensive
(costly) for depository libraries, thus precluding some
depository
libraries from offering the NTIS service to their patrons and
limiting public access to these materials.
- - This alternative as proposed would not be an official part
of
the FDLP, so there is no statutory obligation for NTIS to
initiate
or sustain it, and no guarantee that this service would be
available
to all depository libraries. Since depository obligations under
44 U.S.C. Chapter 19 are for the publishing agencies, unless this
NTIS service was brought under the FDLP officially, it would not
fulfill agency obligations, and GPO would have to continue to
work directly with agencies to make information products
available
without restriction through the FDLP.
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
Government Information Policy
How can the Federal Depository Library Program assist the
Government
in fulfilling its responsibility for informing its citizens in
the new electronic environment? How can basic public access to
Government information products be assured despite increasing
requirements that agencies find new ways to raise revenues?
Depository Library Role in Access to Non-GPO Data
There is no current model for bringing electronic Government
information
products available through agency electronic information services
officially into the FDLP. Should there be? Should GPO attempt
to establish interagency agreements for inclusion of material
available from agency Internet sites in the FDLP? If so, what
limitations, restrictions or guarantees should be covered by
these
agreements? What provisions should be made for permanent public
access to this type of information? Is the fact that the GPO
Pathway
locator services direct users to an agency site enough to
consider
the information at that site an "official" part of the
FDLP? What is the responsibility of depository libraries for
providing
assistance with information at nonGPO sites, and for providing
facilities for downloading and printing?
Depository Library and GPO Role in Managing Limitations on
Usage
or Redissemination
If GPO negotiates agreements with agencies which put limits on
redissemination of the their data, depository libraries will be
put in the position of enforcing copyrightlike restrictions on
Government information products. They might be required to check
for user affiliation, or forbid downloading of data. Such
restrictions
are used in libraries for commercial products, but have not been
in place for Government information products. Should Congress
and GPO cooperate in creating systems which place limits on the
use of Government information products? Is an expansion of
access,
even with limitations, reason enough to accept limitations which
agencies need in order to protect their revenue stream?
Permanent Public Access
How will the public be assured of access to Government
information
products over periods of many years, if electronic information
services, such as agency Web sites, are purged of older
materials?
How will electronic information products be maintained for
permanent
access? Although CDROM can provide access for a number of years,
it is not considered a permanent medium and all data on CD-ROM
will need to be migrated to new media for truly permanent access.
Attachment D-12
Task 9A: Case Study on Securities and Exchange Commission EDGAR
Data
Attachment D-12
TASK 9A: Evaluation of issues surrounding inclusion of
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) EDGAR System in the
Federal Depository Library Program when that information is not
already included in paper or microfiche format.
BACKGROUND
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) administers federal
securities laws. Issuers of securities making public offerings
must file financial and other pertinent data with the SEC. This
information is available in SEC public reading rooms and through
private vendors. It also is available through the SEC's
Electronic
Data Gathering, Analysis and Retrieval System (EDGAR) electronic
filing system. According to the SEC, the primary purpose of EDGAR
is to "increase the efficiency and fairness of the
securities
market for the benefit of investors, corporations, and the
economy
by accelerating the receipt, acceptance, dissemination, and
analysis
of timesensitive corporate information filed with the
agency."
EDGAR is used by nearly 75% of publicly traded domestic companies
to make most of their filings. All public companies will be
required
to file electronically with the SEC by May, 1996. The SEC
receives
approximately 12 million documents a year, and estimates that
users download nearly 17,000 documents a day.
In 1993, the Internet Multicasting Service and New York
University
entered into an agreement to test Internet as a vehicle for
making
this data available to a broader public. That twoyear experiment
was funded by the National Science Foundation through a grant
which expired on October 1, 1995.
In a speech on August 11, 1995, SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt
announced
that the SEC would provide access to EDGAR on its own World Wide
Web site. Levitt said, "It is a major Commission priority
to use electronic communications to bring clearer, faster, more
complete disclosure to investors as well as to reduce costs for
issuers. This represents a logical step in our efforts to better
inform investors....We've had many creative offers from the
private
sector to keep EDGAR on the Internet..., but all of them would
in some way limit the amount of information available, or else
attach too many commercial strings. Taxpayers and shareholders
have already paid to compile this informationthey should not have
to pay again."
The SEC Web site provides access to all of the public electronic
filings made from 1994. It supports user access through Web
Browser
or Anonymous File Transfer Protocol (FTP). EDGAR access is
provided
free of charge on a daydelayed basis. Direct bulk feed of EDGAR
data also can be purchased from Lexis/Nexis, which operates the
EDGAR dissemination service.
The SEC intends to incorporate new technologies and concepts to
facilitate the capture, analysis, and dissemination of the
financial
data the SEC is required to obtain. To that end, a Technology
Conference was held on August 14, 1995, followed by a Request
for Information (RFI) in October. The RFI sought information on
the possible privatization of the EDGAR system, in addition to
a number of other policy and
technical issues. The RFI asked whether the agency should
continue
to maintain and operate this service, "or should this
service
be provided by the private sector either on the Internet or via
some other means?"
On January 4, 1996, the SEC issued a second RFI concerning the
EDGAR system. This RFI supplements the first and specifically
solicits comments on several potential EDGAR system
architectures.
Unlike the first RFI, which proposed a possible privatization
of the EDGAR service currently provided through the SEC Web site,
all four models presented in the new RFI assume that "the
SEC will retain its Internet site and continue to offer the
current
level of EDGAR document dissemination service."
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY DISSEMINATION
Information filed with the SEC has never been part of the FDLP
in paper, electronic or microfiche format. Although at one point
SEC entered into discussions with GPO about creating a CDROM
version
of their documents, which would have included FDLP distribution,
no agreement was reached.
DISSEMINATION ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A
EDGAR is maintained on the SEC Web site and the GPO Pathway
locator
services will direct users, including depository libraries, to
the SEC Web site for this information.
Benefits
No new product development is needed.
No costs are incurred by GPO or SEC for inclusion of this
information
product in the FDLP.
The GPO Pathway locator services enhance public access to SEC
filings by making them easier to find.
Disadvantages/Problems
Depository libraries without Internet capabilities cannot access
the EDGAR database.
Alternative B
The SEC provides the electronic data to GPO for distribution to
depository libraries on CDROM. Preliminary discussions with SEC
about CDROM production assumed dissemination of approximately
10,000,000 pages of information per year. This includes Form Q,
Form K, mergers/acquisition, and proxy statement filings. Over
a one year period this would equate to the production of
approximately
52 discs. The estimated cost to GPO for replication and
distribution
of these discs to 700 depository libraries would be $182,000.
Projected costs might be reduced by compressing files and/or by
distributing discs less frequently. The SEC would be charged for
premastering the discs unless the Federal Depository Library
Program: Information Dissemination and Access Strategic Plan,
FY 1996 - FY 2001 (Strategic Plan) for
the FDLP is approved, in which case funds for premastering could
be taken from the FDLP appropriation. The GPO Pathway locator
services would direct users to the SEC Web site for more
immediate
access to filings.
Benefits
Currently, depository libraries are better equipped to handle
CDROM than Government electronic information services.
CD-ROM is a good media for depository distribution. As a
read-only
media, CD-ROM assures the integrity of the data, and the
estimated
media life of a CD-ROM is 30 years or more. However, the
longevity
of the retrieval and display software frequently used on CD-ROM
titles is less certain due to dependency on specific computer
operating systems or other technology that may become obsolete
more rapidly than the physical media.
Disadvantages/Problems
Additional cost to the FDLP of approximately $182,000 per year,
or more if GPO pays for premastering the discs. Since SEC filings
have never been a part of the FDLP, their inclusion in the FDLP
in electronic format nets no cost savings for elimination of
comparable
paper or microfiche products from the program.
Discs will not be as timely as access through the SEC Web site.
However, as access to the SEC Web site is free, depository
libraries
still retain a mechanism for timely access of current SEC
filings.
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
Permanent Archiving
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is
engaged
in negotiations with SEC to identify and schedule the records
of enduring value in the EDGAR system. NARA has expressed concern
about longterm access to files if the database is privatized,
and would prefer in that case to acquire the data directly on
magnetic tape cartridge. Any EDGAR data transferred to NARA will
not be maintained for use through an electronic information
service
and will not be accessible via the Internet on a continuing
basis.
However, a specific request will trigger access to the EDGAR
data.
Permanent Access
The SEC has not indicated how long filings will remain actively
available on their Web site. If filings are "retired"
after a few years, access to earlier information would be
available
only in SEC reading rooms or through private vendors, unless
provision
is made for CD-ROM backup or "mirror" sites.
Methods for Bringing Electronic Information Products Officially
Into the FDLP
There is no current model for bringing information products
available
through remote access to Government electronic information
services
sites officially into the FDLP. Should there be? Should GPO
attempt
to establish interagency agreements for inclusion of material
available from agency Web sites in the FDLP? If so, what
limitations,
restrictions or guarantees should be covered by these agreements?
What provisions should be made for permanent access to this type
of information? Is the fact that the GPO Pathway locator services
direct users to an agency site enough to consider the information
at that site an "official" part of the FDLP? What is
the responsibility of depository libraries for providing
assistance
with information at nonGPO sites?
Attachment D-13
Task 9B: Case Study on Federal District and Circuit Court
Opinions
Attachment D-13
TASK 9B: Evaluatation of how United States Court of
Appeals'
published slip opinions might be included in the Federal
Depository
Library Program (FDLP) electronically, although traditionally
they have not been a part of the FDLP in either paper or
microfiche
format.
INTRODUCTION
The United States Courts of Appeals traditionally has published
their own slip opinions in paper form and has a long standing
waiver from the requirement to use the services of the Government
Printing Office (GPO) to produce printed materials. The opinions
are distributed to the parties, members of the court community,
law libraries, and are available to the public through various
sources. As technology progressed, the courts took advantage of
the improved efficiencies and began electronically transmitting
opinions to interested legal publishers and the public, created
court-operated electronic bulletin board systems for further
public
distribution to the bar and the public, and made slip opinions
available on the Internet for yet further distribution.
The following paper presents a review of existing electronic
methods
for dissemination of Government information and discusses, in
particular, alternatives the courts might consider for
disseminating
appellate court opinions. The paper addresses: (1) the background
for the long-standing practice of producing slip opinions using
local printing contractors, (2) the Judiciary's relationship with
the Federal Depository Library Program, (3) the alternatives for
distributing slip opinions electronically, and (4) the issues
posed by electronic distribution. The paper does not offer any
recommendations. Any change to current practices would need to
be considered by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
the courts, and the Judicial Conference of the United States.
BACKGROUND
Production of slip opinions for the federal courts of appeals
is handled locally by the individual courts of appeals. There
is no centralized administrative control over the slip opinion
process, beyond the assistance provided by the Administrative
Office (AO) for procuring a printing contractor. All policy
regarding
production and distribution is made by each appellate court. Slip
opinions typically are produced and distributed to the court,
and to both paid and free subscribers, by contract vendors.
Wide access to the federal appellate opinions is available in
both hard print and electronic formats. Historically, the courts
have provided hard print copies of slip opinions to interested
law schools within their circuit, often in exchange for free
subscriptions
to those law schools' journals. Other non-profit organizations,
including government organizations, usually receive free
subscriptions
to the published opinions. Copies of the opinions also are
provided
to the press. In addition, opinions always have been available
to the public through paid subscriptions and in the circuit
libraries.
In addition to access to print copies, electronic access to
appellate
opinions is available through a variety of sources. The
electronic
legal research options are available from numerous commercial
vendors and all twelve circuits provide public access to their
recent published opinions through their own electronic bulletin
board systems (BBS) or the Internet. The systems operate on
toll-free
telephone lines and opinions are provided primarily in ASCII or
WordPerfect format, to allow the broadest access for users. There
is no full text search capability on the bulletin boards. The
bulletin boards provide general court information and an index
of cases to assist users in their searches as well as the text
of the opinions. Typically, users do not read the cases while
on-line on the BBS, but download them to their computers to
reduce
on-line access costs as well as to improve readability.
Experience
has shown that most legal researchers continue to prefer to read
lengthy text, such as court opinions, from printed copies, as
opposed to reading from a computer screen.
Each circuit has established local rules governing access to,
and availability of, these electronic bulletin boards. The policy
of the Judicial Conference of the United States is to authorize
the collection of a fee for electronic access to court
information,
consistent with a mandate from Congress. The current PACER
(Public
Access to Court Electronic Records) fee is $0.60 per minute. The
fee was authorized by the Congress to reimburse the Judiciary
for costs incurred in providing electronic public access
services.
The fee is based on costs for development, implementation and
enhancement of electronic public access services. The Judicial
Conference further authorized that exemptions from the fee may
be granted by a court, in order to avoid unreasonable burdens
and to promote public access to information. The exemption is
intended to accommodate those users who might otherwise not have
access to the information product in electronic form. Examples
of persons and classes of persons who may be exempted from these
fees include indigents and not-for-profit organizations.
The Judiciary has no plans at this time to initiate an internal
process to collect opinions and post them on the Judiciary's own
World Wide Web site, which is still in its infancy. However,
there
have been several developments recently in providing Internet
access to the opinions. One circuit is using a third-party
Internet
host to upload its opinions to the Internet. There also is a
commercial
vendor who has added all appellate published opinions to its Web
Site, purchasing opinions from the courts when necessary and then
posting them to the site for free public use.
In addition, a consortium of law schools, generally one from each
circuit, provides free access to appellate opinions through each
school's Web Site. Circuits were approached individually by the
law schools about participating in this effort. Opinions from
all circuits are available through the law school Web sites. The
member law schools have complete responsibility for retrieving
the opinions, processing them as they determine necessary and
uploading them to the Internet.
DISSEMINATION TO FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES
The Judiciary has a longstanding waiver from the requirement to
utilize the Government Printing Office's (GPO) printing
resources.
An indefinite waiver was renewed by the Joint Committee on
Printing
in 1985, which requires that the Judiciary participate in the
FDLP by providing copies of opinions to all requesting depository
libraries. The Judiciary has worked with GPO to implement this
distribution process; however, to date, no agreement has been
reached on the most efficient and effective means to distribute
the thousands of opinions published by the courts of appeals each
year.
In 1994, discussions began in order to determine how opinions
could be distributed to the FDLP electronically, especially since
the federal appellate courts had been widely circulating their
opinions electronically for some time. The Judiciary recognized
the efficiency in handling the large volume of slip
opinions in this manner. However, this project has been delayed
in recognition of GPO efforts in establishing its Web site, the
Judiciary's progress in establishing an electronic bulletin board
in each circuit, and now, the current FDLP Study.
ALTERNATIVES FOR DISSEMINATING OPINIONS TO FEDERAL
DEPOSITORY
LIBRARIES
Alternative A
The Judiciary could provide electronic versions of the slip
opinions
to GPO, which would in turn add them to GPO Access as
full-text
searchable databases. GPO requires the collection of opinions
from all circuits. Due to the decentralized nature of the
Judiciary,
it may be necessary to establish a focal point for this effort
in order to ensure consistent compliance with GPO needs.
Therefore,
this alternative may require that the Administrative Office
collect
the opinions and send them to GPO. In this event, the AO would
need to establish a reimbursable agreement with GPO to pay the
costs of routine collection, preparation, conversion, and storage
of the electronic data.
Benefits
- - The printing waiver granted to the Judiciary is continued.
- - Public access is improved, a goal the Judiciary has pursued
actively and successfully in recent years.
- - Creation of a full-text searchable database enhances the
usefulness
of opinions to researchers and provides a single source for the
information, thus assuring a uniform interface and file formats.
- - Permanent public access to the opinions is assured by GPO
and
the FDLP.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - Collecting opinions from the courts and providing them to
GPO
will require increased AO staff resources to develop the
applications
for opinion collection and dissemination and to monitor the daily
collection of opinions. This will mean increased costs for the
AO, which would likely have to acquire funding for this purpose.
- - Increased costs would be incurred by the Judiciary for the
data
formatting and storage done by GPO. Acquiring additional funding
for this purpose would not be required if the Federal
Depository
Library Program: Information Dissemination and Access Strategic
Plan, FY 1996 - FY 2001 (Strategic Plan) for the FDLP is
approved,
in which case funds for conversion and storage could be paid for
by the FDLP appropriation.
Alternative B
The Judiciary could provide electronic versions of the slip
opinions
to GPO, which would in turn add them to the Federal Bulletin
Board
for free public access through the FDLP.
Benefits
- - The printing waiver granted to the Judiciary is continued.
- - Public access to opinions is improved by providing one
central
location for all appellate court opinions.
- - Permanent public access to the opinions is assured by GPO
and
the FDLP.
- - No additional conversion or storage costs would be incurred
by the Judiciary.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - Collecting opinions from the courts and providing them to
GPO
will require increased AO staff resources to develop the
applications
for opinion collection and dissemination and to monitor the daily
collection of opinions. This will mean increased costs for the
AO, which would likely have to acquire funding for this purpose.
- - Opinions would be available only as ASCII or WordPerfect
files
making them less useful than a full-text searchable database.
Alternative C
The Judiciary's existing BBS services are being used broadly and
have received general acceptance. These BBS services could be
made the center of the FDLP electronic access arrangement, by
offering the depository libraries free access to the opinions
on each circuit's BBS. It is not clear how this would be
implemented
technologically. The GPO Pathway locator services could direct
users to the appellate courts' BBS for slip opinions. It is
possible
that end users would have to access opinions indirectly by first
going through the FDLP program, adding some steps to the research
process.
Benefits
- - The printing waiver granted to the Judiciary is continued.
- - Public access to opinions is improved.
- - There is no need to establish a centralized collection
method,
therefore no additional costs are incurred by the AO.
- - Each circuit maintains control over its own opinions.
- - Although this alternative is likely to increase costs to
the
Judiciary, e.g., for enhancing the BBS, implementing new password
maintenance, adding phone lines, and increasing hardware costs
for larger computers for the BBS, these costs might be offset
by the PACER fee account.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - With multiple sources for the opinions, it is more
time-consuming
for users to access the opinions they need.
- - Opinions would be in ASCII and WordPerfect format;
therefore,
text searching would not be available.
- - Depository libraries would have to register and become
familiar
with multiple bulletin board systems, with no standard interface
and various file formats.
- - Accessibility is determined by each circuit and permanent
access
cannot be guaranteed.
Alternative D
The Judiciary could support its own Web site to collect and store
opinions. The opinions would be full text searchable. The GPO
Pathway locator services would direct users to the Judiciary Web
site for appellate court opinions.
Benefits
- - Public access to opinions is broadened and improved.
- - The printing waiver granted to the Judiciary is continued.
- - Security and control of the information would be controlled
by the Judiciary.
- - The visibility and image of the Courts of Appeals and the
Judiciary
is improved.
- - Costs for maintaining opinions on the Web site would be
offset
in part by other applications the site would provide.
- - As a full-text searchable database, opinions are more
useful
to researchers.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - As with Alternative A, costs would be incurred by the
Judiciary
to collect and format the opinions for dissemination. There also
would be on-going costs associated with maintenance and permanent
access to the opinions. Thus, costs to the Judiciary would
increase.
Alternative E
The law school consortium project is the leading effort to
consolidate
the slip opinions on the Internet. The Judiciary could endorse
the law school consortium project and create a partnership
between
the consortium, the Judiciary (most likely, through the AO), and
GPO. Rather than the Judiciary or GPO maintaining the data, the
consortium would provide access to the opinions. The GPO Pathway
locator
services would refer users to law school Web sites. Currently,
the consortium schools retrieve opinions from their local circuit
BBS and, if opinions are needed from another circuit, the user
is transparently directed to the other law school Web site with
the requested opinions.
Benefits
- - The printing waiver granted to the Judiciary is continued.
- - Public access to opinions is improved.
- - There is no increase in the resources needed by the
Judiciary.
- - This information service will be maintained by the law
schools.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - The Judiciary and FDLP are dependent on the law schools to
maintain
access to the opinions. Moreover, there is no guarantee that
opinions
will be available for permanent access. Arrangements concerning
these issues would have to be made with the participating law
schools before GPO could endorse the project.
- - Each of the law schools determine how they wish to format
the
opinions. Currently, there is no national standard for format
or appearance.
- - Information is located at several sites, and the user must
know
which law school Web site to search in order to locate an
opinion.
The GPO Pathway locator services could help solve this problem.
- - Some sites are copyrighting the formatting of the opinions,
thus restricting use and re-use of the information. This
restriction
would have to be removed by the participating law schools before
GPO could endorse the project.
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
In reviewing alternative methods for electronically disseminating
slip opinions to the FDLP, a list of issues has been developed.
Some of these issues were raised during the development of the
bulletin boards and were resolved according to the needs and
priorities
of the circuits. Should the federal courts change individual or
collective practices, these issues will need to be revisited.
Permanent Access and Preservation
For what duration are opinions maintained on-line? How is
permanent
access for the FDLP assured? How is preservation by NARA to be
accomplished? Should a preservation process be developed? Is
there
demand for an alternative, near-line access method, such as
CD-ROM?
Would that be considered sufficient for permanent access?
Requirements for Electronic Access
Should information products available electronically from the
Judiciary be provided in a format to assist users in conducting
legal research, or is this primarily a means of disseminating
information products without affecting the form and utility of
the information they provide?
Legal research requires software with full text search capability
and requires access to historical records, both of which add
significant
costs to making opinions available electronically.
Need and Demand for an Alternate Method of Dissemination
With the current variety of judiciary, non-profit, and commercial
sources for slip opinions, is it necessary to develop another
alternative method of dissemination through GPO or the Judiciary?
Is there a market demand that is not being met by the various
public dissemination methods currently available? If so, do the
costs of establishing an additional alternative method of
dissemination
outweigh the need demonstrated?
Ensuring the Integrity of Data
What controls exist in any electronic system to ensure the
integrity
of data?
Is there a need to have "true" or "certified"
electronic versions of slip opinions? Since each circuit formats
its decision uniquely, in order to provide an accurate and exact
copy, it would be necessary to use Adobe Acrobat Portable
Document
Format (PDF) files.
Costs for Dual Format Distribution
The Judiciary will continue to have a demand for paper copies
of decisions by judges, parties, law schools, private
practitioners,
and others who now subscribe to the courts. Thus, for the
foreseeable
future, it will be necessary to maintain both print and
electronic
distribution of court opinions. Therefore, enhanced electronic
dissemination will not reduce costs, but will be an additional
cost.
Attachment D-14
Task 10A: Case Study on STAT-USA Services
Attachment D-14
TASK 10A: Review of the effects of offering free public
access to STATUSA information products and services through the
Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP).
BACKGROUND
STATUSA is a selffunding organization within the Department of
Commerce. Its mission is to produce and distribute, and to assist
other Government agencies in producing and distributing, world
class business, economic, and Government information products
that American businesses and the public can use to make
intelligent
and informed decisions. Services are provided through a variety
of electronic media including dialup bulletin board, CDROM,
diskette,
and the Internet.
Economic Bulletin Board
More than a decade ago, STATUSA's predecessor organization, the
Office of Business Analysis (OBA), started the Economic Bulletin
Board (EBB). The EBB was designed to deliver, in electronic
format,
current economic and business information products to the public
as soon as they were made available. It was also designed as a
onestop source for economic news, so that customers would not
need to go to dozens of different agencies looking for indicators
of the state of the U.S. economy. OBA began charging for access
to its electronic information services in 1986 at the direction
of then Under Secretary of Commerce Bud Brown. Since the EBB was
a valuable business tool, it was believed that the business
community
should help defray the costs associated with its operation. Early
EBB fee structures were designed to provide reasonable payments
from large scale customers and provide access to onetime or
infrequent
users at very low prices.
National Trade Data Bank
In 1989, OBA was assigned to plan and implement the National
Trade
Data Bank (NTDB) which was mandated by the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness
Act of 1988. The Act called for the Department of Commerce to
lead an effort to bring together Government information related
to international trade and export promotion and to make this
available
to the U.S. public in a lowcost, electronic form. OBA selected
CDROM as the most costeffective technology to distribute what
was anticipated to be a large collection of information from a
variety of agencies. The concept of user fees was supported in
the language that created the NTDB which allowed Commerce to
charge
"reasonable fees" for NTDB access. Moreover, since
appropriations
to fund the NTDB never adequately covered the actual costs of
developing and operating the data bank, OBA became reliant on
customer fees to partially defray costs of keeping the NTDB open.
This perilous financial situation was recognized by Vice
President
Gore's first National Performance Review (NPR) in 1994 which
recommended
that the National Trade Data Bank be placed on a firm financial
footing. This, and other NPR recommendations led to three
outcomes:
- - STATUSA was established in October 1994 with the explicit
mission
to develop electronic business, economic, and trade information
services.
- - A revolving fund was established with a onetime
appropriation
of $1.67 million to set up STATUSA operations and provide a
financial
safety net until it could operate on a cost recovery basis.
- - Provisions of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988
pertaining to the price of the NTDB were amended to authorize
STATUSA to recover the full cost of operating the NTDB.
STATUSA/Internet
STATUSA/Internet contains many of the same types of information
found on the NTDB CDROM, the EBB, and the National Economic,
Social,
and Environmental Data Bank (now discontinued). However, having
these information products available in one Internet location
has proven to be more timely and useful to many libraries.
Moreover,
STATUSA makes use of current information searching tools which
provide more accurate search results than similar searches
conducted
on the CDROM.
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY DISTRIBUTION
STATUSA has enjoyed a long and steady relationship with the
depository
library community. Many librarians have convinced STATUSA of the
value of serving the U.S. public through the FDLP.
An official relationship with the FDLP began in 1989 when the
EBB was included as one of the five original pilot projects to
determine the feasibility of FDLP access to Government electronic
information services. One hundred libraries were provided access
to the EBB from June 1, 1990 December 30, 1990. GPO reimbursed
OBA $15,000 for access by the 100 participating libraries during
the trial period. The results of the pilot project were mixed;
a relatively small number of depository libraries actually took
advantage of the service.
CDROM use by the business community was in its infancy during
the late 1980's and early 1990's. Consequently in its
implementation
plans for the NTDB in 1990, OBA specifically planned for free
distribution of the CDROM through the FDLP to meet the
Congressional
intent for this information to be widely disseminated. Potential
users of this information product would not be required to own
CDROM hardware and software, but could access the NTDB at the
nearest depository library holding the CDROM in its collection.
When the NTDB CDROM was first issued in October 1990, more than
600 depository libraries elected to receive it. During the
ensuing
five years, the NTDB has become one of the most widely used CDROM
titles in the FDLP. As of March, 1996, 1,070 depository libraries
receive the monthly set of NTDB discs. Many depository libraries
have indicated they permanently mount the NTDB due to its
constant
demand by library patrons. The size of the NTDB has grown
considerably
since the first issue which contained roughly 40,000 documents.
Today, it contains nearly 250,000 documents and requires two
separate
discs to deliver the entire collection each month.
STATUSA continued its open relationship with depository libraries
in 1994 when it established STATUSA/Internet. Starting that Fall,
depository libraries were given singleuser free access to this
Internetbased electronic information service.
STATUSA initially intended to accept depository applications
directly
for STAT-USA/Internet. However, library demand for this service
quickly exceeded the ability of Commerce staff to create new
accounts,
maintain records on STATUSA internal computer systems, and
provide
applying depository libraries with timely notification of the
activation of their account. Part of the registration pressure
was eased in 1995 when the GPO Library Programs Service (LPS)
staff agreed to take over many of the administrative duties
associated
with signing up libraries to access the service. Currently, 521
depository libraries access STATUSA/Internet.
DISSEMINATION ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A
STATUSA will continue to offer STATUSA/Internet to the FDLP with
the costs recovered from other STATUSA fees.
Benefits
- - STATUSA relies on depository libraries as advertising
vehicles
for its services. Many current STATUSA customers were first
introduced
to the NTDB or STATUSA/Internet through use of these services
in a library. Many library patrons eventually want their own
subscription
to use in their home or office. Depository libraries provide very
low cost exposure to STATUSA products and assist us in marketing
our services.
- - STATUSA routinely refers large numbers of customers to
depository
libraries to access its services. There are still many
information
customers who do not possess the computer technology to access
STATUSA information products, do not want to pay for the services
or cannot afford them, or want to try out the service before they
buy. STATUSA refers these customers to the FDLP community and
views depository libraries as a public safety net to ensure
public
access to these information products.
Disadvantages/Problems
Alternative B
GPO would purchase access to STATUSA/Internet for the depository
libraries. Based on the published prices for STATUSA/Internet
access, the current level of access (single simultaneous user)
for the 521 libraries currently selecting STATUSA/Internet would
cost $130,250 per year. For $208,400 GPO could purchase
"Class
C" access for 521 libraries; that would permit access to
all users within a single Class C IP Address in each library.
For $416,800 GPO could purchase access for 6 to 10 simultaneous
users for each of the 521 libraries. (This is comparable to the
original number of GPO Access subscriptions provided to
each depository library.)
Benefits
- - STATUSA continues to rely on depository libraries as
advertising
vehicles for its services.
- - STATUSA continues to refer a large number of customers to
depository
libraries to access its services and retains depository libraries
as a public safety net to ensure public access to their
information
products.
- - Depository libraries could increase the number of
simultaneous
users with access to STATUSA/Internet if GPO elected to purchase
Class C service or service for 6 to 10 simultaneous users.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - Libraries want to ensure the broadest public access to the
information
products available through STATUSA at no cost to patrons. Since
U.S. Government information cannot be copyrighted, libraries can
freely disseminate electronic Government information products
as broadly as they so choose (and their resources permit), thus
undermining the ability of STATUSA to exist as a selffunding
agency.
Although the payment by GPO of fees for access by depository
libraries
would compensate STATUSA for the costs of providing FDLP access,
it would not eliminate the problem created by libraries offering
remote access or redisseminating the information from STATUSA.
This problem is not unique to the FDLP; it exists even when the
depository libraries (or others) purchase access to STATUSA
services.
- - GPO incurs additional costs associated with purchasing
access
for depository libraries.
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
Funding for Depository Copies
STATUSA drastically reduced its costs for providing discs to the
depository libraries by switching CDROM production from the
National
Technical Information Service (NTIS) to GPO. STATUSA estimates
it cost nearly $75,000 per year to supply FDLP copies of CDROM
titles produced through nonGPO replication contracts. These funds
are paid by GPO now that the NTDB is produced through a GPO
CDROM
replication contract.
Costs for FDLP access to STATUSA/Internet currently are covered
by STATUSA. GPO could purchase access for the depository
libraries,
either using STATUSA's published rates or by negotiating a
special
rate for depository libraries.
Training
STATUSA has reduced its training activities for depository
librarians
from prior years. STATUSA conducted over 30 specialized library
training programs throughout the country during the first two
years the NTDB was operating. We receive continuing requests for
additional training classes today. However, it is much more
difficult
to offer these training classes; they generally can be considered
only for large gatherings such as the annual Depository Library
Conference, when STATUSA staff are traveling for commercial
conferences,
or when traveling costs are defrayed by library organizations.
For example, virtually no training has been provided for
depository
library access to STATUSA/Internet. Moreover, a new generation
NTDB CDROM software will be released in 1996. It is unlikely
significant
training activities can be held for this new format. This
increases
the burden on depository librarians to create their own
documentation,
become selftaught, or rely on other avenues to ensure they can
use these services. STATUSA could afford to provide additional
training if GPO purchased its services on behalf of the FDLP.
Alternatively, GPO could negotiate to "purchase"
additional
training services from STATUSA if STATUSA continues to offer free
FDLP access.
Fee vs. Free
The final, and most important, issue facing feebased agencies
is the conflict between the federal statutes that seek to assure
free public access through the FDLP while also requiring feebased
agencies to recover not just the costs of dissemination, but also
their development costs. Libraries want to ensure the broadest
public access to Government information products at no cost to
patrons. By contrast, feebased agencies must charge fees to
support
the creation, organization, and dissemination of their electronic
information services, without the protection of copyright or
copyrightlike
restrictions on their use.
The fee versus free issue was a relatively minor issue when
library
patrons literally walked through a door and used a paper document
such as a book or pamphlet. Today's electronic information
technology,
however, makes this a much more serious issue. Library patrons
no longer need to be in the physical library. Instead, they can
use library holdings from across the
street or around the world. Since U.S. Government information
cannot be copyrighted, depository libraries can freely
disseminate
Government information products as broadly as they so choose (and
their resources permit).
These librarybased dissemination activities make sense from the
library's perspective. It is far easier for educational
institutions
to create networked collections of information accessible from
student dorm rooms or faculty offices than to provide walkin
access
to a limited number of computer workstations located in the
library.
Similarly, a public library may wish to serve all its branches,
or offer remote access to its patrons from their homes or
offices.
Many examples exist where libraries have subscribed to STATUSA
electronic information services, or received them free of charge
as depository libraries, and then redistributed the information
via free electronic information services. Significant portions
of the National Trade Data Bank and virtually all the files found
on the Economic Bulletin Board are "repackaged" by one
or more libraries and distributed for free. For example, the
University
of Michigan operates a virtual mirror site of the EBB; they
download
EBB files every day, post them on the University of Michigan
gopher
service and make them available to two constituent groups
students
and faculty at the University of Michigan and other depository
libraries. Unfortunately, through their efforts EBB files also
are distributed to the rest of the world at no charge. There is
so much confusion on this issue that large information vendors
such as America Online even refer their customers to the
"Economic
Bulletin Board at the University of Michigan."
However, the same library dissemination activities place feebased
electronic information services like STATUSA in financial vises.
It is much more difficult for feebased agencies to organize and
operate their electronic information collection activities when
the public is increasingly reluctant to pay for data freely
available
from other sources. This creates a loselose situation for the
feebased agency and the depository libraries. The agencies cut
back operations because they do not have sufficient revenue to
operate their services and the libraries (and other users)
receive
poor quality service and/or smaller amounts of information.
Ultimately,
the downward spiral in potential revenues creates strong
incentives
for feebased agencies to withhold information products from the
depository library system altogether and to impose severe
restrictions
of its use, whether by subscribers or those receiving it through
the FDLP. The latter action violates the policy articulated in
OMB Circular A130 that agencies should not impose copyrightlike
restrictions on Government electronic information services.
Attachment D-15
Task 10B: Case Study on the National Library of Medicine MEDLINE
Service
Attachment D-15
TASK 10B: Evaluation of alternatives for including the
National Library of Medicine (NLM) MEDLINE data, available as
an electronic feebased service, in the FDLP.
BACKGROUND
MEDLARS is a computerized system of databases and data banks
targeted
to health professionals and medical libraries. It is operated
by the National Library of Medicine (NLM). Users may search
MEDLARS
computer files to produce a list of publications (bibliographic
citations) or to retrieve factual information on a specific
question.
Users of MEDLARS include universities, medical schools,
hospitals,
Government agencies, commercial and nonprofit organizations, and
private individuals. MEDLARS comprises two computer subsystems,
ELHILL and TOXNET, on which reside over 40 online databases
containing
about 16 million references. ELHILL databases provide access to
information on a wide range of subjects relating to biomedicine.
TOXNET (TOXicology data NETwork) is a computerized collection
of files on toxicology, hazardous chemicals and related areas.
MEDLINE (MEDlars onLINE), part of ELHILL, is NLM's premier
bibliographic
database covering the fields of medicine, nursing, dentistry,
veterinary medicine, and preclinical sciences. Journal articles
are indexed for MEDLINE, and their citations are searchable,
using
NLM's controlled vocabulary, MeSH (Medical Subject Headings).
MEDLINE contains all citations published in Index Medicus,
and also corresponds in part to the International Nursing
Index
and the Index to Dental Literature. MEDLINE contains
about 7.2 million records with about 31,000 new citations added
to the database each month. It indexes articles
from more than 3,800 international biomedical journals dating
from 1966 to the present.
NLM is authorized by law (P.L. 89941) and by regulation (42 CFR
Chap. 1, § 4.7) to charge fees to users of its specialized
bibliographic services, including its electronic information
service,
or its information retrieval system computer tapes. There are
several different rate structures for the MEDLARS databases. The
one most applicable to the FDLP is a fixedfee rate, available
for organizations with many potential searchers. One fixedfee,
one registration, and one ID is established between NLM and the
parent organization. The negotiated fixedfee is based on NLM
formulas
about anticipated use patterns, and other costs.
NLM currently is offering free access to four MEDLARS databases:
three online AIDS databases, as well as DIRLINE, an online
directory
of health and biomedical resources of all types, primarily in
the United States. NLM still requires a registration process for
use of these free databases.
NLM has an expanding World Wide Web site. However, the head of
the NLM Office of Public Information indicated that the NLM Web
site is "mature" and would not expand to include more
free information products. He said NLM has already identified
the databases that it wants to offer free on the Web. One of
these,
an Aids Bibliography, currently is issued to depository libraries
in paper. The others have no print or microfiche counterpart in
the FDLP.
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY DISTRIBUTION
There are several publications either currently or formerly
delivered
to depository libraries in print format which have content
included
in MEDLARS. For example, MEDLINE includes the citations that are
in the print Index Medicus, a very costly depository print
title. The MEDLINE database also contains information in addition
to what appears in the print Index Medicus, including
corrections
to the information in the printed edition.
The following titles have been discontinued in print format, but
the content is available at no cost via the Internet. The result
is a cost savings to the FDLP, as shown below:
NLM Titles No Longer Annual GPO Cost Savings**
Frequency Media
Available to the FDLP in
Print Format
National Library of $757.89
Medicine Current Catalog (500 copies = $1.52
Quarterly
Microfiche
(last issued 1993) each)
National Library of $7,551.64
Medicine Audio Visual (461 copies = $16.38
Quarterly Paper
Catalog each)
(last issued 1993)
Total Annual GPO Savings $8,309.53
** Based on GPO printing and binding costs x number of selecting
depository libraries, claims copies, and postage
The Aids Bibliography continues in the FDLP in paper format, but
the content also is available at no cost via the Internet. If
FDLP distribution of the Aids Bibliography were discontinued
there
would be a cost savings to the FDLP, as shown below:
NLM Titles Still in the Potential Annual GPO
Frequency Media
FDLP with Content Available Cost Savings**
via Internet
AIDS Bibliography $24,781
(782 copies = $2.64 Monthly
Paper
each)
Total Annual GPO Savings $24,781
** Based on GPO printing and binding costs x number of selecting
depository libraries, claims copies, and postage
On October 5, 1995, members of the Task 10 team and the Director
of Library Programs Service, met with top NLM officials to
ascertain
if GPO might establish an agreement with NLM to provide free
access
to NLM feebased electronic information services for depository
libraries. A number of issues were discussed, but most
importantly
for this task, NLM explained it was not in a position to provide
free public access to all depository libraries.
However, NLM suggested that the team consider a pilot project
involving a limited number of depository libraries. Internet
Grateful
Med was suggested as a potential test application, following
which
NLM could examine the issue of pricing. Data collected in the
context of such a test could possibly result in the establishment
of fixed-fee access for depository libraries.
DISSEMINATION ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A
Simultaneously drop traditional format NLM publications from the
FDLP while substituting access to NLM's feebased MEDLARS system
for depository libraries. GPO would purchase access to MEDLARS
for
depository libraries at a fixedfee rate which would allow for
unlimited searching for all depository libraries, or a fixed
amount
or ceiling on use could be arranged based on anticipated use
patterns
and other negotiable factors. Part or all of the cost for the
depository library access to MEDLARS could be met by immediately
eliminating paper format distribution of some costly titles from
the FDLP.
Major NLM Titles in the FDLP
and Also in NLM's Fee-based
Online MEDLARS Service
Current Major NLM Titles Total Annual Cost**
Abridged Index Medicus $16,477.02 (607 copies =
$27.15
each)
(monthly - paper)
Index Medicus $133,824.33 (730 copies =
$183.32
each)
(14 issues per year - paper)
Cumulated Index Medicus $187,938.50 (730 copies =
$257.45 each)
Total Annual Savings $338,239.85
** Based on GPO printing & binding costs x number of
selecting
depository libraries + claims copies, and postage.
Benefits
- - This approach yields the maximum cost savings to GPO.
- - MEDLARS is more timely than its print counterparts.
- - NLM ensures that the historical information available
through
its electronic information service is continually edited and
updated.
This prevents use of outdated or incorrect information that
remains
in the paper copies.
- - MEDLARS contains additional information that is not
distributed
through the FDLP.
- - Any additional costs to NLM for depository library access
are
offset by the fee paid by GPO.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - Public access at or through depository libraries could
impact
NLM's revenue from its electronic information services, even
though
GPO is paying NLM a fee for that access.
- - To use the service effectively, depository libraries and
users
will need training that is not required to use the print
products.
Alternative B
Use a phasedin approach where traditional formats and electronic
information service options will be offered as choices in the
FDLP, with the elimination of the paper format to occur at a
preannounced
date. If the Federal Depository Library Program: Information
Dissemination and Access Strategic Plan, FY 1996 - FY 2001
(Strategic
Plan) for the FDLP is approved, the phased-in approach would have
to be concluded by the end of FY 1998 since the plan eliminates
all dual distribution to depository libraries.
Benefits
- - This "parallel" approach will make the transition
easier on the libraries.
- - MEDLARS is more timely than its print counterparts.
- - NLM ensures that the historical information available
through
its electronic information service is continually edited and
updated.
- - MEDLARS contains additional information that is not
distributed
through the FDLP.
- - Additional costs to NLM for depository access are offset by
fees paid by GPO.
Disadvantages/Problems
- - It may be difficult to achieve shortterm cost savings
sufficient
to offset the fees for access with a transitional approach.
- - Public access at or through depository libraries could
impact
NLM's revenue from its electronic information services, even
though
GPO is paying NLM a fee for that access.
- - To use the service effectively, depository libraries and
users
will need training that is not required to use the print
products.
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
Impact of FDLP Inclusion on Agencies' FeeBased Services
The statutory and regulatory basis for NLM's information
dissemination
may operate at cross purposes to the public information goals
of the FDLP. NLM is concerned that nofee access via depository
libraries would undercut their market. Feebased information
programs,
where the agency must charge users in order to recover costs,
are a barrier to participation in the FDLP.
Mission of a Publishing Agency to Disseminate Its Information
Dissemination of information products to the general public
through
the FDLP is not viewed as a part of, or consistent with, the
agency's
information delivery mission to its primary customers. Although
NLM has been willing to have its print publications available
through the FDLP, it does not recognize a comparable obligation
for electronic information products. A clarification of law may
be necessary to make it clear to agencies that laws directing
agency information dissemination do not, unless specifically
stated,
eliminate the responsibility for participation in the FDLP.
Attachment E:
National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS)
Principles of Public Information
Attachment E
National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
Principles of Public Information
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access, Volume
60, Number 111 (June 9, 1995), Page 30609
Principles of Public Information
Preamble
From the birth of our nation, open and uninhibited access to
public
information has ensured good government and a free society.
Public
information helps to educate our people, stimulate our progress
and solve our most complex economic, scientific and social
problems.
With the coming of the Information Age and its many new
technologies,
however, public information has expanded so quickly that basic
principles regarding its creation, use and dissemination are in
danger of being neglected and even forgotten. The National
Commission
on Libraries and Information Science, therefore, reaffirms that
the information policies of the U.S. government are based on the
freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, and on the recognition
of public information as a national resource to be developed and
preserved in the public interest. We define public information
as information created, compiled and/or maintained by the Federal
Government. We assert that public information is information
owned
by the people, held in trust by their government, and should be
available to the people except where restricted by law. It is
in this spirit of public ownership and public trust that we offer
the following Principles of Public Information.
Principles
1. The Public Has the Right of Access to Public
Information
Government agencies should guarantee open, timely and uninhibited
access to public information except where restricted by law.
People
should be able to access public information, regardless of its
format, without any special training or expertise.
2. The Federal Government Should Guarantee the Integrity and
Preservation of Public Information, Regardless of its Format
By maintaining public information in the face of changing times
and technologies, government agencies assure the government's
accountability and the accessibility of the government's business
to the public.
3. The Federal Government Should Guarantee the Dissemination,
Reproduction, and Redistribution of Public Information
Any restriction of dissemination or any other function dealing
with public information must be strictly defined by law.
4. The Federal Government Should Safeguard the Privacy of
Persons
Who Use or Request Information, as Well as Persons About Whom
Information Exists in Government Records
5. The Federal Government Should Ensure a Wide Diversity of
Sources of Access, Private as Well as Governmental, to Public
Information
Although sources of access may change over time and because of
advances in technology, government agencies have an obligation
to the public to encourage diversity.
6. The Federal Government Should Not Allow Cost to Obstruct
the People's Access to Public Information
Costs incurred by creating, collecting and processing information
for the government's own purposes should not be passed on to
people
who wish to utilize public information.
7. The Federal Government Should Ensure that Information About
Government Information is Easily Available and in a Single Index
Accessible in a Variety of Formats
The government index of public information should be in addition
to inventories of information kept within individual government
agencies.
8. The Federal Government Should Guarantee the Public's Access
to Public Information, Regardless of Where They Live and Work,
through National Networks and Programs like the Depository
Library
Program
Government agencies should periodically review such programs as
well as the emerging technology to ensure that access to public
information remains inexpensive and convenient to the public.
Conclusion
The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
offers
these Principles of Public Information as a foundation for the
decisions made throughout the Federal Government and the nation
regarding issues of public information. We urge all branches of
the Federal Government, state and local governments and the
private
sector to utilize these principles in the development of
information
policies and in the creation, use, dissemination and preservation
of public information. We believe that in so acting, they will
serve the best interests of the nation and the people in the
Information
Age.
Attachment F:
Title 44 United States Code Chapter 19-- Depository Library
Program
Attachment F
Title 44 United States Code Chapter 19--
Depository Library Program
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]/1/
/1/ Historical and revision notes removed.
[Laws in effect as of January 3, 1995]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between January
3, 1995 and May 1, 1996]
TITLE 44-PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS
CHAPTER 19-DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM
Sec. 1901. Definition of Government publication
``Government publication'' as used in this chapter, means
informational
matter which is published as an individual document at Government
expense, or as required by law.
Sec. 1902. Availability of Government publications through
Superintendent of Documents; lists of publications not ordered
from Government Printing Office
Government publications, except those determined by their issuing
components to be required for official use only or for strictly
administrative or operational purposes which have no public
interest
or educational value and publications classified for reasons of
national security, shall be made available to depository
libraries
through the facilities of the Superintendent of Documents for
public information. Each component of the Government shall
furnish
the Superintendent of Documents a list of such publications it
issued during the previous month, that were obtained from sources
other than the Government Printing Office.
Sec. 1903. Distribution of publications to depository
libraries;
notice to Government components; cost of printing and
binding
Upon request of the Superintendent of Documents, components of
the Government ordering the printing of publications shall either
increase or decrease the number of copies of publications
furnished
for distribution to designated depository libraries and State
libraries so that the number of copies delivered to the
Superintendent
of Documents is equal to the number of libraries on the list.
The number thus delivered may not be restricted by any statutory
limitation in force on August 9, 1962. Copies of publications
furnished the Superintendent of Documents for distribution to
designated depository libraries shall include
the journals of the Senate and House of Representatives;
all publications, not confidential in character, printed upon
the requisition of a congressional committee;
Senate and House public bills and resolutions; and
reports on private bills, concurrent or simple resolutions;
but not socalled cooperative publications which must necessarily
be sold in order to be selfsustaining.
The Superintendent of Documents shall currently inform the
components
of the Government ordering printing of publications as to the
number of copies of their publications required for distribution
to
depository libraries. The cost of printing and binding those
publications
distributed to depository libraries obtained elsewhere than from
the Government Printing Office, shall be borne by components of
the
Government responsible for their issuance; those requisitioned
from the Government Printing Office shall be charged to
appropriations
provided the Superintendent of Documents for that purpose.
Sec. 1904. Classified list of Government publications for
selection
by depositories
The Superintendent of Documents shall currently issue a
classified
list of Government publications in suitable form, containing
annotations
of contents and listed by item identification numbers to
facilitate
the selection of only those publications needed by depository
libraries. The selected publications shall be distributed to
depository
libraries in accordance with regulations of the Superintendent
of Documents, as long as they fulfill the conditions provided
by law.
Sec. 1905. Distribution to depositories; designation of
additional
libraries; justification; authorization for certain
designations
The Government publications selected from lists prepared by the
Superintendent of Documents, and when requested from him, shall
be distributed to depository libraries specifically designated
by law and to libraries designated by Senators, Representatives,
and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, by the
Commissioner
of the District of Columbia,/2/ and by the Governors of Guam,
American
Samoa, and the Virgin Islands, respectively. Additional libraries
within areas served by Representatives or the Resident
Commissioner
from Puerto Rico may be designated by them to receive Government
publications to the extent that the total number of libraries
designated by them does not exceed two within each area. Not more
than two additional libraries within a State may be designated
by each Senator from the State. Before an additional library
within
a State, congressional district or the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico is designated as a depository for Government publications,
the head of that library shall furnish his Senator,
Representative,
or the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, as the case may
be, with justification of the necessity for the additional
designation.
The justification, which shall also include a certification as
to the need for the additional depository library designation,
shall be signed by the head of every existing depository library
within the congressional district or the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico or by the head of the library authority of the State or the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, within which the additional
depository
library is to be located. The justification for additional
depository
library designations shall be transmitted to the Superintendent
of
Documents by the Senator,
Representative, or the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico,
as the case may be. The Commissioner of the District of Columbia
may designate two depository libraries in the District of
Columbia,
the Governor of Guam and the Governor of American Samoa may each
designate one depository library in Guam and American Samoa,
respectively,
and the Governor of the Virgin Islands may designate one
depository
library on the island of Saint Thomas and one on the island of
Saint Croix.
/2/ See Transfer of Functions note below.
Transfer of Functions
Office of Commissioner of District of Columbia, as established
under Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1967, eff. Nov. 3, 1967 (in part),
32 F.R. 11669, 81 Stat. 948, abolished as of noon Jan. 2, 1975,
by Pub. L. 93198, title VII, Sec. 711, Dec. 24, 1973, 87 Stat.
818, and replaced by office of Mayor of District of Columbia by
section 421 of Pub. L. 93198, classified to section 1241 of
District
of Columbia Code.
Northern Marianas College as Depository
Pub. L. 101219, title II, Sec. 202, Dec. 12, 1989, 103 Stat.
1874,
provided that: ``The Northern Marianas College is hereby
constituted
a depository to receive Government publications, and the
Superintendent
of Documents shall supply to the Northern Marianas College one
copy of each such publication in the same form as supplied to
other designated depositories.''
District of Columbia Public Library as Depository
Act Sept. 28, 1943, ch. 243, 57 Stat. 568, provided: ``That the
Public Library of the District of Columbia is hereby constituted
a designated depository of governmental publications, and the
Superintendent of Documents shall supply to such library one copy
of each such publication, in the same form as supplied to other
designated depositories.''
Sec. 1906. Landgrant colleges constituted depositories
Landgrant colleges are constituted depositories to receive
Government
publications subject to the depository laws.
Sec. 1907. Libraries of executive departments, service
academies,
and independent agencies constituted depositories; certifications
of need; disposal of unwanted publications
The libraries of the executive departments, of the United States
Military Academy, of the United States Naval Academy, of the
United
States Air Force Academy, of the United States Coast Guard
Academy,
and of the United States Merchant Marine Academy are designated
depositories of Government publications. A depository library
within each independent agency may be designated upon
certification
of need by the head of the independent agency to the
Superintendent
of Documents. Additional depository libraries within executive
departments and independent agencies may be designated to receive
Government publications to the extent that the number so
designated
does not exceed the number of major bureaus or divisions of the
departments and independent agencies. These designations may be
made only after certification by the head of each executive
department
or independent agency to the Superintendent of Documents as to
the justifiable need for additional depository libraries.
Depository
libraries within executive departments and independent agencies
may dispose of unwanted Government publications after first
offering
them to the Library of Congress and the Archivist of the United
States.
Sec. 1908. American Antiquarian Society to receive certain
publications
One copy of the public journals of the Senate and of the House
of Representatives, and of the documents published under the
orders
of the Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, shall
be transmitted to the Executive of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts
for the use and benefit of the American Antiquarian Society of
the Commonwealth.
Sec. 1909. Requirements of depository libraries; reports on
conditions; investigations; termination; replacement
Only a library able to provide custody and service for depository
materials and located in an area where it can best serve the
public
need, and within an area not already adequately served by
existing
depository libraries may be designated by Senators,
Representatives,
the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, the Commissioner of
the District of Columbia,/3/ or the Governors of Guam, American
Samoa,
or the Virgin Islands as a depository of Government publications.
The designated depository libraries shall report to the
Superintendent
of Documents at least every two years concerning their condition.
/3/ See Transfer of Functions note below.
The Superintendent of Documents shall make firsthand
investigation
of conditions for which need is indicated and include the results
of investigations in his annual report. When he ascertains that
the number of books in a depository library is below ten
thousand,
other than Government publications, or it has ceased to be
maintained
so as to be accessible to the public, or that the Government
publications
which have been furnished the library have not been properly
maintained,
he shall delete the library from the list of depository libraries
if the library fails to correct the unsatisfactory conditions
within six months. The Representative or the Resident
Commissioner
from Puerto Rico in whose area the library is located or the
Senator
who made the designation, or a successor of the Senator, and,
in the case of a library in the District of Columbia, the
Commissioner
of the District of Columbia, and, in the case of a library in
Guam, American Samoa, or the Virgin Islands, the Governor, shall
be notified and shall then be authorized to designate another
library within the area served by him, which shall meet the
conditions
herein required, but which may not be in excess of the number
of depository libraries authorized by laws within the State,
district, territory, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as the
case may be.
Transfer of Functions
Office of Commissioner of District of Columbia, as established
under Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1967, eff. Nov. 3, 1967 (in part),
32 F.R. 11669, 81 Stat. 948, abolished as of noon Jan. 2, 1975,
by Pub. L. 93198, title VII, Sec. 711, Dec. 24, 1973, 87 Stat.
818, and replaced by office of Mayor of District of Columbia by
section 421 of Pub. L. 93198, classified to section 1241 of
District
of Columbia Code.
Sec. 1910. Designations of replacement depositories;
limitations
on numbers; conditions
The designation of a library to replace a depository library,
other than a depository library specifically designated by law,
may be made only within the limitations on total numbers
specified
by
section 1905 of this title, and only when the library to be
replaced
ceases to exist, or when the library voluntarily relinquishes
its depository status, or when the Superintendent of Documents
determines that it no longer fulfills the conditions provided
by law for depository libraries.
Sec. 1911. Free use of Government publications in
depositories;
disposal of unwanted publications
Depository libraries shall make Government publications available
for the free use of the general public, and may dispose of them
after retention for five years under section 1912 of this title,
if the depository library is served by a regional depository
library.
Depository libraries not served by a regional
depository library, or that are regional depository libraries
themselves, shall retain Government publications permanently in
either printed form or in microfacsimile form, except superseded
publications or those issued later in bound form which may be
discarded as authorized by the Superintendent of Documents.
Sec. 1912. Regional depositories; designation; functions;
disposal
of publications
Not more than two depository libraries in each State and the
Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico may be designated as regional depositories, and
shall receive from the Superintendent of Documents copies of all
new and revised Government publications authorized for
distribution
to depository libraries. Designation of regional depository
libraries
may be made by a Senator or the Resident Commissioner from Puerto
Rico within the areas served by them, after approval by the head
of the library authority of the State or the Commonwealth of
Puerto
Rico, as the case may be, who shall first ascertain from the head
of the library
to be so designated that the library will, in addition to
fulfilling
the requirements for depository libraries, retain at least one
copy of all Government publications either in printed or
microfacsimile
form (except
those authorized to be discarded by the Superintendent of
Documents);
and within the region served will provide interlibrary loan,
reference
service, and assistance for depository libraries in the disposal
of
unwanted Government publications. The agreement to function as
a regional depository library shall be transmitted to the
Superintendent
of Documents by the Senator or the Resident Commissioner from
Puerto Rico when the designation is made.
The libraries designated as regional depositories may permit
depository
libraries, within the areas served by them, to dispose of
Government
publications which they have retained for five years after first
offering them to other depository libraries within their area,
then to other libraries.
Sec. 1913. Appropriations for supplying depository libraries;
restriction
Appropriations available for the Office of Superintendent of
Documents
may not be used to supply depository libraries documents, books,
or other printed matter not requested by them, and their requests
shall be subject to approval by the Superintendent of Documents.
Sec. 1914. Implementation of depository library program by
Public Printer
The Public Printer, with the approval of the Joint Committee on
Printing, as provided by section 103 of this title, may use any
measures he considers necessary for the economical and practical
implementation of this chapter.
Sec. 1915. Highest State appellate court libraries as
depository
libraries
Upon the request of the highest appellate court of a State, the
Public Printer is authorized to designate the library of that
court as a depository library. The provisions of section 1911
of this title shall not apply to any library so designated.
Sec. 1916. Designation of libraries of accredited law schools
as depository libraries
(a) Upon the request of any accredited law school, the Public
Printer shall designate the library of such law school as a
depository
library. The Public Printer may not make such designation unless
he determines that the library involved meets the requirements
of this chapter, other than those requirements of the first
undesignated
paragraph of section 1909 of this title which relate to the
location
of such library.
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ``accredited law
school''
means any law school which is accredited by a nationally
recognized
accrediting agency or association approved by the Commissioner
of Education/4/ for such purpose or accredited by the highest
appellate
court of the State in which the law school is located.
/4/ See Section 1916, Transfer of Functions.
Transfer of Functions
Functions of Commissioner of Education transferred to Secretary
of Education pursuant to section 3441(a)(1) of Title 20,
Education.
Attachment G:
Summary of the Results of the
1995 Biennial Survey of Federal Depository Libraries
Attachment G
Summary of the Results of the
1995 Biennial Survey of Federal Depository Libraries
As of January 16, 1996 1,372 Depository Libraries Responding
Online Catalog
Libraries with online catalogs 1,175 (85.6%)
Libraries with online catalogs with dial-in access 956 (69.6%)
Libraries with online catalogs accessible from the Internet 854
(62.2%)
Libraries with online catalogs networked with other libraries
745 (54.3%)
Internet Tools Available for Primary Patrons
E-mail 664 (48.3%)
Telnet 799 (58.2%)
FTP 695 (50.6%)
Gopher 841 (61.2%)
WAIS 516 (37.6%)
WWW-nongraphical 559 (40.7%)
WWW-graphical 693 (50.5%)
No current Internet access 265 (19.3%)
Plan for Internet access in 1 year 216 (15.7%)
Plan for Internet access in 2 years 115 ( 8.3%)
No plans to have Internet access for staff 87 ( 6.3%)
Internet Tools Available at Public Access Workstations
E-mail 294 (21.4%)
Telnet 534 (38.9%)
FTP 423 (30.8%)
Gopher 617 (44.9%)
WAIS 370 (26.9%)
WWW-nongraphical 375 (27.3%)
WWW-graphical 516 (37.6%)
No current Internet access 341 (24.8%)
Plan for Internet access in 1 year 253 (18.4%)
Plan for Internet access in 2 years 160 (11.6%)
No plans to have Internet access for staff 169 (12.3%)
Libraries Providing GPO Access
Registered for GPO Access 545 (39.7%)
Provide through another institution's gateway 283 (20.6%)
No, but have plans to within 1 year 272 (19.8%)
No, but have plans to within 2 years 131 ( 9.5%)
No, have no plans to 127 ( 9.2%)
Use of the GPO Federal Bulletin Board
Daily or almost daily use by staff 15 ( 1.0%)
Occasional use by staff 123 ( 8.9%)
Less than once a week use by staff 481 (35.0%)
Have not yet registered for the GPO Federal Bulletin Board 732
(53.3%)
Estimated Daily Use of Depository Electronic Products
CD-ROMs
Not Used 211 (15.3%)
Less than 30 minutes 483 (35.2%)
30-59 minutes 240 (17.4%)
1-1.5 hours 131 ( 9.5%)
More than 1.5 hours 301 (21.9%)
Diskettes
Not Used 1,026 (74.8%)
Less than 30 minutes 302 (22.0%)
30-59 minutes 15 ( 1.1%)
1-1.5 hours 6 ( 0.4%)
More than 1.5 hours 12 ( 0.9%)
GPO Access
Not Used 579 (42.2%)
Less than 30 minutes 583 (42.5%)
30-59 minutes 117 ( 8.5%)
1-1.5 hours 41 ( 2.9%)
More than 1.5 hours 34 ( 2.5%)
Federal Bulletin Board
Not Used 936 (68.2%)
Less than 30 minutes 381 (27.8%)
30-59 minutes 31 ( 2.3%)
1-1.5 hours 4 ( 0.3%)
More than 1.5 hours 3 ( 0.2%)
SuDocs World Wide Web Site
Not Used 692 (50.4%)
Less than 30 minutes 547 (40.0%)
30-59 minutes 71 ( 5.2%)
1-1.5 hours 17 ( 1.2%)
More than 1.5 hours 23 ( 1.7%)
Accessibility of Depository CD-ROMs
Accessible from stand-alone workstations 1,140 (83.0%)
Accessible from Documents or reference department LAN 157 (11.4%)
Accessible from library-wide LAN 203 (14.7%)
Accessible through a Wide Area Network, beyond the library 109
( 7.9%)
Have CD-ROM capability -- do not select depository CD-ROMs 73
( 5.3%)
Select depository CD-ROMs -- do not have CD-ROM capability 56
( 4.0%)
Do not have CD-ROM capability -- do not select depository CD-ROMs
42 ( 3.0%)
CD-ROM Drives Primarily Supporting the Documents
Collection
None 112 ( 8.1%)
1 230 (16.7%)
2-4 408 (29.7%)
5-10 327 (23.8%)
11-20 164 (11.9%)
21-40 82 ( 5.9%)
More than 40 36 ( 2.6%)
Computer Workstations Available Primarily for Depository
Patron
Use
No. of
Computers PCXT 286 386 486
Pentium
Mac
0 636 505 421 262
568 603
1 95 199 275 392
136 68
2-4 85 76 180 402
60 52
5-10 8 9 18 60
7 11
11-20 4 2 4 7
1 1
21-40 1 0 2 4
0 0
40+ 1 1 1 4
3 3
Computer Workstations with Internet Access Available for
Depository
Patron Use
No. of
Computers PCXT 286 386 486
Pentium
Mac
0 811 700 667 564
662 675
1 22 26 65 174
50 39
2-4 26 16 57 147
47 28
5-10 20 9 25 76
17 26
11-20 13 6 18 55
18 12
21-40 8 1 7 28
9 6
40+ 3 1 9 36
9 10
Methods of Patron Access to the Internet
Modem 99 ( 7.2%)
Direct 625 (45.5%)
Both modem and direct 161 (11.7%)
Not Available 78 ( 5.6%)
If electronic media and online services replace most paper and
microfiche distributed through the FDLP in the next two years,
would your library retain depository status?
Yes 1,233 (89.8%)
No 95 ( 6.9%)
Left blank 42 ( 3.0%)
Follow-up letters were sent to those depository libraries who
responded "no" to the above question or left it blank.
Of these, 62 depository libraries responded to the letter with
more information concerning their initial response.
Cited Financial Reasons 26.3%
Budget shortfall - not keeping pace with inflation
Mushrooming costs for equipment
Higher salaries for staff expertise
Cited Staffing Implications of the Transition 17.5%
Lack of public service staff
Lack of patron expertise
Training of patrons
Training of staff on new systems
Cited Problems with Identifying/Preserving/Archiving Electronic
Information 10.1%
Cited Problems with Electronic Information Products 8.8%
Lack of uniform graphical interfaces
Lack of software standardization
Cited Other Library Priorities 8.8%
Automation
Upgrading OPAC
Installing LAN
Other Reasons Cited:
- - FDLP no longer an exclusive source for Government
information
- - Obligations remain but costs, primarily for equipment,
increase
- - Access will be restricted to the computer literate
Attachment H:
Recommended Minimum Specifications for
Public Access Workstations in Federal Depository Libraries
Attachment H
Recommended Minimum Specifications for
Public Access Workstations in Federal Depository Libraries
Published in Administrative Notes, May 15, 1996
These recommended specifications are intended to assist
depository
librarians who are planning purchases of new personal computers
(PCs) for public use in Federal depository libraries. The
"Recommended
Minimum Technical Guidelines," last published by the Library
Programs Service (LPS) in January 1995, are superseded.
Related Issues and Considerations
The specifications are intended to assist in the purchase of new
public access work stations capable of using most text-based FDLP
electronic information products. Additional or different
capabilities
may be desirable for work stations used by library staff. Some
libraries may elect to add applications software, such as
spreadsheet,
word processing, or data base software, to their public access
work stations, but this is a local resource management decision.
LPS has been advised that work stations which conform to these
minimum specifications may not be adequate for electronic
cartographic information, or to run geographic information system
(GIS) software. LPS is working with the Cartographic Users
Advisory
Council (CUAC) to develop a supplemental set of specifications
which support GIS applications.
Depository libraries are encouraged to adapt this menu of
specifications
to fit their local situations. Although these specifications
describe
a robust multi-purpose single work station, many institutions
are providing electronic access in networked environments. LPS
cannot anticipate or address every possible depository library
computer scenario. Rather, these specifications are intended to
assist depository staff in making informed purchases which will
best achieve the goal of providing public access to Federal
Government
information in a variety of electronic formats.
Computer equipment in depository libraries must be sufficient
to allow timely and equitable public access to the Government
information products accessible via Internet, to CD-ROMs, and
should allow printing or downloading information selected by the
user.
Given the large variation in the size of Federal depository
libraries
and the numbers of users served, LPS can not recommend a
universal
standard for the number of public access work stations in any
given library. However, when assessing work station needs,
librarians
should consider such local factors as the amount of information
provided over the Internet compared with the amount from CD-ROM,
whether and how the work stations are networked, to what extent
users are permitted to perform additional information processing
at the public access work stations, whether users are
experiencing
extended waiting times at library peak service hours, etc.
LPS has deliberately not provided specifications for Apple
Macintosh
(Mac) or UNIX work stations. Based on responses to the 1995
Biennial
Survey, Mac's are the computer of choice for a small minority
of the depository libraries. However, depository libraries which
have a Mac or UNIX environment should assess their functional
capabilities in light of these specifications.
Many depository libraries have existing computer equipment which
is no longer "state of the art." These specifications
are not intended to be applied retrospectively to existing
equipment,
although they may assist in determining the appropriate time for
replacement or upgrading.
These specifications are not intended to describe the best
possible
work station. Instead, they are the minimum, or baseline,
specifications
which should be considered when purchasing new stand-alone public
access work stations. LPS encourages the purchase of equipment
which exceeds these minimum specifications if economically
feasible.
The speed at which the computer capabilities evolve suggests that
a higher initial outlay will result in an extended useful life
for the equipment.
Minimum Work Station Configuration
Computer IBM-compatible Pentium chip computer operating at 100
mhz
Memory 16 megabytes (Mb) of RAM
Hard Disk Drive 1.2 gigabytes (Gb) capacity; 12 ms or less access
time; IDE or SCSI interface
Floppy Disk 3.5" high density drive. Consider a 5.25"
drive if you have a collection of 5.25" diskettes that have
not yet been converted to 3.5".
Expansion Three free expansion bus board slots; 1 or more
additional
hard drive bay(s) desirable; 2 serial ports and 1 parallel ports.
Monitor Super VGA (SVGA) compatible, with at least 70Mhz vertical
refresh rate at SVGA resolution (800X600) non-interlaced, 0.28
or smaller dot pitch; display card which supports 800X600
resolution
at 70Mhz or faster. 15" monitor minimum, but consider
17".
Consider 21" to display full page images.
CD-ROM Drive For stand-alone use, single or multiple platter
drive
(ISO 9660 standard). 300 K/byte per second transfer rate,
quadruple
(4X) speed support. CD-ROM XA support.
Printer Ink jet or laser printer which supports PostScript. 2
Mb memory. Consider color.
Pointing Device Microsoft-compatible mouse or similar pointing
device to support programs and Microsoft Windows.
Network Connection Direct Internet or SLIP/PPP connection.
Or
Modem 28.8 kbps data transfer rate, meeting V.32, V.42, V.42bis
or MNP 5 standards and compatible with Hayes "AT"
command
set.
Operating System Microsoft Windows 3.1 or later (requires MS-DOS
3.3 or higher). Device driver for CD-ROM drive and MS-DOS CD-ROM
extensions.
Communications Package which supports multiple file transfer
protocols;
several terminal emulations such as ANSI-BBS, TTY, VT-100. Data
transfer rates up to 28.8 kbps. Supports Hayes "AT"
compatible modems; manages telnet sessions. Consider ability to
"script" log-on files.
Client Software World Wide Web graphical browser with forms
support.
ANSI Z39.50 compatible, GILS-aware WAIS client. Consider EINet
WinWais customized for GPO Access.
Viewers PDF file viewer. GIF and JPEG graphics viewers.
Applications Software Options
Database dBASE file format compatible or dBASE and ASCII comma
delimited file importing database management software; useful
to have fixed field format (SDF) import ability.
Spreadsheet Lotus .WK1 file format compatible software; support
for other formats such as Excel and Quattro Pro.
Word Processing Software capable of importing major text file
formats (Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, Multimate, etc.) and ASCII
text files.
(Published in Administrative Notes, the newsletter of the
Federal Depository Library Program, May 15, 1996)
Attachment I:
Comments from U.S. Senators
Attachment I
List of Enclosures
Chesapeake Public Library System, Chesapeake, Virginia
City of Norfolk, Department of Libraries, Norfolk, Virginia
College of William & Mary, Marshall-Wythe Law Library,
Williamsburg,
Virginia
College of William & Mary, Office of the Dean of University
Libraries, Williamsburg, Virginia
Eastern Kentucky University, John Grant Crabbe Library, Richmond,
Kentucky
George Mason University Library, Fairfax, Virginia (2)
The Library, Louisville, Kentucky
The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia
Library of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit,
Richmond, Virginia
Mary Washington College, Simpson Library, Fredericksburg,
Virginia
Murray State University, Office of the Dean, University
Libraries,
Murray, Kentucky
National Defense University, Armed Forces Staff College, Library,
Norfolk, Virginia
Old Dominion University, Office of the University Librarian,
Norfolk,
Virginia
Supreme Court of Virginia, Office of the Chief Justice, Richmond,
Virginia
Enclosure: Virginia State Law Library, Richmond, Virginia
University of Virginia, Alderman Library, Charlottesville,
Virginia
University of Virginia, Arthur J. Morris Law Library,
Charlottesvlle,
VA
Virginia Military Institute, Preston Library, Lexington, Virginia
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, University
Libraries, Blacksburg, Virginia
Virginia State University, Library & Technology Services,
Petersburg, Virginia
Washington and Lee University, Law Library, Lexington, Virginia
Attachment J:
Minutes from the Meeting of FDLP Study Working Group and
Advisors,
April 18, 1996
Attachment J
Minutes from the Meeting of FDLP Study Working Group and
Advisors,
April 18, 1996
On April 18, 1996, there was a meeting of the FDLP Study working
group and advisors in order to provide the advisors with an
opportunity
to present their preliminary reactions on the draft Report to
Congress. The minutes of the meeting are provided below.
Supplemental
statements submitted by the Depository Library Council to the
Public Printer, the library association advisors, and the
National
Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) are
provided
in Attachments K, M, and N respectively.
MINUTES
Meeting of the Working Group and Advisors, April 18, 1996
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 628
Wayne Kelley, Superintendent of Documents and chair of the FDLP
Study, opened the meeting at 2:08 p.m. by thanking those present
for attending. Mr. Kelley then turned the floor over to Ms. Judy
Russell, Director, Office of Electronic Information Dissemination
Services and Chair of the FDLP Study working group.
Ms. Russell explained that the joint meeting had been arranged
in response to requests from several advisors for an opportunity
to meet with working group in order to share their views on the
FDLP Strategic Plan and draft FDLP Study Report. She emphasized
that the advisors would be presenting their preliminary comments
on the draft report. The comment period for the FDLP Study would
run through the end of May, by which time final comments would
be expected for incorporation into the report to Congress. Ms.
Russell announced that four advisors would be speaking at the
meeting. These included representatives from the National
Commission
on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS), the Depository
Library
Council to the Public Printer (DLC), the Information Industry
Association (IIA) and the American Library Association (ALA).
ALA would be speaking on behalf of itself and several other
library
associations.
As several of the advisors and working group members had not met
previously, Mr. Kelley asked those in attendance to introduce
themselves.
1. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
(NCLIS)
After introductions were completed, Ms. Russell announced the
first speaker, Ms. Joan Challinor from the National Commission
on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS).
Ms. Challinor explained that she was speaking on behalf of Ms.
Jeanne Hurley Simon, Chair of NCLIS, as Ms. Simon was unable to
attend. She thanked the Government Printing Office for the
opportunity
to share some preliminary thoughts on the draft report. Ms.
Challinor
explained that NCLIS members had not yet had the opportunity to
review the report thoroughly. Therefore, the comments she was
providing were preliminary and would be followed with more
detailed
comments at a later date. Her
comments would address four areas: NCLIS's Principles of Public
Information, the results of NCLIS's surveys of public libraries
Internet involvement, the Commission's interest in assisting with
the proposed FDLP technical implementation assistance, and
NCLIS's
general concerns about citizen access to Federal information.
Ms. Challinor provided a brief history of NCLIS, explaining that
it was established as an independent agency in 1970. NCLIS
advises
both the President and the Congress on national and international
policy relating to library and information science. It is a
citizen's
advisory body, and as such, it represents the interests of the
people.
On July 28, 1990, NCLIS adopted its Principles of Public
Information.
These were included in the draft FDLP Study Report as Attachment
E. The eight statements were adopted as an interrelated whole
(no one of the principles more important than another) and were
meant to serve as the underlying basis for the formulation of
all future national information policies. NCLIS was glad to see
these principles incorporated into the draft report because any
actions taken as a result would need to balance Congressional
concerns for cost efficiencies with these basic principles
regarding
the creation, access, use, and dissemination of Government
information.
Ms. Challinor presented findings from two NCLIS studies on public
library Internet connectivity. The first study, conducted in
1994,
found that 20.9% of the nation's public libraries had Internet
connections. This number had increased to 44.6% by the time of
the second study in 1996. Ms. Challinor explained that any plan
for the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) would have to
take into account this rapid rate of change. In addition to the
two studies on Internet connectivity, NCLIS also developed cost
models for public library connections to the Internet in 1995.
She added that a cost model for 1996 would be included in NCLIS's
future comments as results from the 1996 NCLIS survey are
analyzed
and made available.
Ms. Challinor stressed that any plan for the FDLP should address
the access needs of the general public and should be based on
current, reliable, and consistent information about the
capabilities
of both Federal agencies and depository libraries, as well as
information on the public's need for convenient and inexpensive
access to electronic Government information. NCLIS believes that
the need to gather such background information makes a twoyear
transition period insufficient. NCLIS believes a fiveyear
transition
period from 1996 to 2001 would be more reasonable.
NCLIS also believes that plans for the FDLP need to be made in
a Governmentwide context. This includes an evaluation of how well
the publics' need for access to public information is being
addressed
through the FDLP in relation to electronic services like GPO
Access, the Library of Congress' THOMAS system, the
Government
Information Locator Service (GILS) and agencies' Internet gopher
sites and World Wide Web (WWW) home pages. To this end, Ms.
Challinor
explained that NCLIS would be interested and willing to
participate
in collaborative efforts to study and analyze this issue.
The floor was then opened to questions for Ms. Challinor. Mr.
Kelley inquired as to the type of study NCLIS believed was
necessary.
Ms. Challinor referred this question to the NCLIS Executive
Director,
Mr. Peter Young.
Mr. Young replied that the type of study that NCLIS had in mind
was similar to the FFRDC study called for in the initial stages
of the FDLP Study. Although some information from GPO's Biennial
Survey has been included in the draft report, he stated that
NCLIS
has seen how rapidly this type of information becomes outdated.
The study would need to address such issues as the role
depository
libraries will play for the members of the public who cannot
access
Government information from their homes; what types of things
depository libraries will need to meet the needs of users; and
what the best use of funds would be (in reference to the $500,000
in technology grants proposed in the draft report). Mr. Young
also explained that the study should not be a onetime effort
information
must be gathered continually due to the rapid rate of change.
He also stated the NCLIS sees a need for the identification of
Government WWW sites in order to authenticate and preserve
information
made available through them. This will be critical to the goal
of preserving history. Mr. Young finished by reiterating the need
for a study to gather reliable data which could be used to set
a reasonable, sensible direction for the program.
No further comments or questions for NCLIS were offered from the
floor. Ms. Russell introduced the next speaker, Mr. Dan O'Mahony,
outgoing chair of the Depository Library Council (DLC).
2. Depository Library Council to the Pubic Printer (DLC)
Mr. O'Mahony expressed the DLC's thanks for the opportunity to
comment on the draft report and for the scheduling of the meeting
around the Depository Library Conference which had just ended
that morning. He explained that the Council was pleased that the
comment period for the report had been continued and stated that
final comments from the DLC on the report would be provided by
the end of May. He stated that it was obvious that previous
comments
from the council had been incorporated and/or taken into account
in the draft report. Mr. O'Mahony said that overall the DLC's
reaction to the report was positive. He stated that the DLC was
pleased to see that the report was written in the tone of the
Senate report language with its emphasis on improving access to
Government information. He informed those present that many of
the issues in the report were discussed by depository librarians
at the recent conference.
Mr. O'Mahony identified several things in the report that the
DLC was particularly pleased with. These included the adoption
of a more realistic 5year time frame that would give patrons,
depository libraries and GPO the chance for a successful
transition.
Mr. O'Mahony also told the group that the DLC has accepted the
principles for Federal information, and the mission and goals
for the FDLP, as stated in the draft report. The DLC was pleased
that the report acknowledged that electronic dissemination
provides
an opportunity to expand the array of information available
through
the FDLP. The DLC believes that Governmentwide cooperation is
needed for a successful transition and recognizes that this will
entail changes to Title 44 of the U.S. Code. The Council also
was pleased to see that the draft report recognized in concept
the continued development of the traditional functions of the
program, particularly the cataloging and public service functions
of depository libraries.
Mr. O'Mahony shared with the group some of the concerns that
remain
for both the DLC and depository librarians. One of the primary
concerns is that the transition should support and enhance public
access, without creating new barriers to it. This will
necessitate
the adoption of a standardized, coordinated bibliographic system
to assist in the location of Government information in depository
libraries regardless of format. There also is deep concern in
the depository community regarding whether the
public will be able to access information in the future. A
standardized
method for providing permanent access to Government information
is needed and the DLC believes that the FDLP needs to be
systematically
notified when the location of files or information is changed.
The DLC also is concerned with the appropriateness of formats
and their effect on public use of information. Mr. O'Mahony
explained
that a number of stories were shared at the depository conference
concerning format problems encountered with downloaded Government
information files. Depository
librarians also are concerned with the increasing number of
restrictions
placed on Government information (i.e. user or access fees) and
the potential transitional costs to the libraries for equipment,
staff and training.
In conclusion, Mr. O'Mahony stated that the DLC strongly
supported
the technological implementation assistance proposed in the draft
report. He explained that depository librarians are excited about
the possibilities for the transition for a more electronic FDLP,
but also are cautious due to concerns about the potential impact
of the transition on end users.
There were no questions for Mr. O'Mahony from the floor. Ms.
Russell
then introduced Mr. Dan Duncan, the Vice President of Government
Relations for the Information Industry Association (IIA).
3. Information Industry Association (IIA)
Mr. Duncan commended Congress for mandating, and GPO for
undertaking,
the FDLP Study and stated that the IIA felt that many important
issues were presented in the draft report. Mr. Duncan stated that
the IIA has long supported the FDLP and GPO as the repository
for Government information. However, he cautioned that GPO should
not attempt to be all things to all people.
He explained that IIA is an association representing more than
550 companies involved in the wide variety of services related
to information dissemination. For Government information, the
private sector plays an integral role in the dissemination
process
by disseminating information to the public after adding value
to it. IIA members are also part of the public who are served
by, and benefit from, the availability of Government information
as are their customers.
The IIA is pleased that the draft report has given consideration
to the principles expressed in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA),
especially the inclusion of principles recognizing the importance
of no copyrightlike restrictions, no exclusive distribution
arrangements
and the guarantee of timely and equitable access to underlying
data. However, the IIA is concerned that GPO is trying to doing
too much. The IIA believes that in the report GPO is proposing
a shift from its traditional role as a facilitator to the new
role of primary publisher. This shift would represent a break
from GPO's mission and historical model and would lead, IIA
believes,
to unnecessary expenditures. Mr. Duncan stated that the IIA also
views such a change as an attempt to further centralize
information
dissemination at a time when Congress is calling for increased
decentralization.
Mr. Duncan raised the issue of standardization as an example of
how IIA believes GPO is trying to do too much. He explained that
according to the draft report, GPO would reformat information
to meet needs beyond those which the publishing agency sees
necessary
for its constituencies. The IIA feels that format decisions
should
be made by the agencies and not by GPO. Mr. Duncan also explained
that IIA felt that GPO's belief that standardization of
Government
information would help the private sector is unfounded the
private
sector would find it more useful to have access to underlying
data. Instead of the Government developing standards, which are
slow to be accepted and to change, the IIA would advocate that
this process should take place in the private sector, driven by
the marketplace. GPO should adopt a
lowest common denominator policy whereby information would be
distributed in the format which maximizes its accessibility, not
necessarily its usefulness. IIA does not feel GPO is in a
position
to assume the level of control it would need to reformat or
standardize
data to meet public needs. In
addition, IIA feels that it implementation of Governmentwide
application
of standards would be impossible and that instead, the Government
should continue to use commercial offtheshelf software for its
publishing.
Mr. Duncan explained that the IIA also would be concerned about
any attempts that might be made to authenticate Government
information.
This, he stated, would drive users to the original Government
document and would harm private sector publishers. Authentication
efforts also would conflict with standardization, as the
authenticity
of information could not be guaranteed if GPO reformatted agency
data. IIA feels that issues concerning authenticity could be
addressed
better through the establishment of Chief Information Officers
at each Federal agency as outlined in the PRA.
The IIA does not object to the technology grants proposed in the
draft report. If Congress decides to fund this activity, the IIA
recommends that depository libraries be allowed to decide how
best to use these funds. IIA does not believe GPO should dictate
to the libraries how to spend the money. In conclusion, Mr.
Duncan
reiterated the IIA viewpoint that GPO should not attempt to
expand
its role beyond its traditional mission.
There were no questions from the floor for Mr. Duncan. Ms.
Russell
introduced the final speaker, Ms. Carol Henderson, Director of
the Washington Office of the American Library Association (ALA).
4. American Library Association (ALA) on Behalf of a Group
of Library Associations
Ms. Henderson explained that several library associations had
worked together on the comments she would be providing, including
the Association for Research Libraries (ARL), the American
Association
of Law Libraries (AALL), the Medical Library Association (MLA),
the Special Libraries Association (SLA) and the Government
Document
Roundtable of ALA (GODORT). She indicated that her oral
statements
would be followed later by written comments on the draft FDLP
Study Report and final task reports, also prepared jointly with
the other library associations.
Ms. Henderson noted that like the DLC, the library associations
felt that GPO had been responsive to their earlier comments in
the drafting of the report. They felt that the FDLP Study process
was very participatory and that all those involved with the FDLP
had been included. She explained that the library associations
were pleased with the more realistic time frame proposed in the
draft report for the transition to electronic dissemination. Ms.
Henderson also stated that the associations were glad to see that
the FDLP Study Report recognized the continued viability of a
variety of formats for the FDLP. The library associations feel
that the report recognizes that redundancy is sometimes necessary
and that it can, in certain circumstances, foster innovation and
guarantee a variety of sources for information. Ms. Henderson
stated that the associations support a centralized or coordinated
bibliographic system for Government information.
The library associations have several continuing concerns. As
Ms. Henderson stated, the associations do not feel that the
findings
of the FDLP Study were based on substantive data. In this regard,
they support approval of the capabilities study to provide
technical
implementation assistance as proposed in the draft report. Ms.
Henderson also expressed their concern regarding long term,
permanent
access to Government information. In the draft report, GPO has
proposed taking on major responsibilities in this area, but she
noted that hard data on how this would be done was missing. The
associations also are concerned about continued no fee access
to Government information. This is a government responsibility
and a key principle of the FDLP. Although the draft report
indicates
that GPO is willing to purchase depository access to other
agencies'
feebased electronic services, there is no assurance that such
information will be available. Availability of the information
is entirely dependent on sufficient
appropriations for the program, not on policy or principles.
Similarly,
copyrightlike restrictions placed on Government information are
viewed by the associations as a problem for libraries and users
and affects both short and long term public access.
One area that the associations did not feel was adequately
addressed
in the draft report was the changing role of regional vs.
selective
depository libraries. The role of regional depository libraries
as seen in the draft report is diminished, while the role of
selective
libraries is expanded. Selective depository libraries will have
to be responsible for access to all Government information. The
associations feel that some selective libraries might not have
the ability to provide adequate service for all Government
information
products. In regards to standardization, the associations feel
that this issue should be resolved through ongoing efforts by
agencies, GPO and the information industry to develop basic
criteria
to evaluate formats for dissemination.
Ms. Henderson also expressed the associations' concerns that
additional
responsibilities placed on depository libraries for access to
electronic information has the potential to increase the burden
on libraries without providing any cost benefit to the
Government.
She pointed out that the report referred to the cost balance for
the current program (in which depository libraries already carry
a disproportionate share) and cautioned that changes to the
program
would have to take this balance into consideration to prevent
further cost shifting to libraries. In closing, Ms. Henderson
noted that in order for the FDLP to work well in an electronic
environment it would need "teeth" and
"incentives"
for agency participation and an infrastructure that supported
participation by all three branches of Government.
There were no questions for Ms. Henderson from those present.
Ms. Russell then asked if there were any further comments or
questions.
Other Comments
Ms. Jan Fryer, the new chair of the Depository Library Council,
was asked to comment on some of the concerns and issues discussed
at the depository conference. She mentioned the concern about
the ability to view and download certain types of Government
information
to an advanced system or printer that some libraries may not have
the funds to acquire. In addition, some libraries may only be
able to provide a few workstations. This may mean that public
patrons will have to wait to access information if terminals are
tied up by other patrons. Although the problem has always existed
a patron may be using a book off the shelf that another patron
needs the situation might be exacerbated in an electronic
environment.
Finally, she explained that some libraries that provide
assistance
for specific types of information, i.e. an agricultural technical
library, may not be able, and should not be expected, to provide
"expert" reference service for the full range of
Government
information products, but they can provide access to that
information.
Right now some libraries select CDROM titles that they cannot
fully support, but the information is available for a
knowledgeable
user to access in the library or by borrowing the CDROM. The fall
DLC meeting will focus on service expectations for selective
depository
libraries.
As there were no further comments or questions from the floor,
Mr. Kelley closed the meeting by thanking the speakers and noting
that, although open discussion may never lead to total agreement,
at least it provides an opportunity to see the different
perspectives
on various issues. With that, the meeting was adjourned at 3:12
p.m. and those in attendance were invited to remain for informal
discussion.
Attendees
Working Group Members and Staff:
Government Printing Office
Mr. Wayne Kelley, Superintendent of Documents (Chair of Study)
Mr. Bill Guy, Office of Budget
Mr. Jerry Hammond, Congressional Printing Management Division
Ms. Judy Russell, Electronic Information Dissemination Services
Mr. Jay Young, Library Programs Service
Mr. Ric Davis, Electronic Transition Staff
Ms. Maggie Farrell, Electronic Transition Staff
Ms. Wendy Frederick, Documents Technical Support Group
Congress
Mr. George Cartagena, Joint Committee on Printing
Mr. John Chambers, Joint Committee on Printing
Ms. Kennie Gill, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration
Ms. Linda Kemp, Joint Committee on Printing
Mr. David McMillen, House Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight
Mr. David Plocher, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
Ms. Joy Wilson, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Mr. Gary Bowden
Depository Library Community
Ms. Julia Wallace, University of Minnesota
Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service
Ms. Jane Bortnick Griffith, Science Policy Research Division
National Archives and Records Administration
Mr. Tom Brown, Center for Electronic Records
Ms. Fynnette Eaton, Center for Electronic Records
Ms. Anita Pintado, Center for Electronic Records
Office of Management and Budget
Mr. Bruce McConnell, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Mr. Glenn Schlarman, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Advisors and Their Associates:
CENDI
Ms. Elizabeth Buffum, Department of Energy, Office of Scientific
and Technical Information
Depository Library Council/Depository Community
Mr. Dan O'Mahony, Brown University
Ms. Jan Fryer, Iowa State University
Mr. Duncan Aldrich, University of Nevada, Reno
Information Industry Association
Mr. Dan Duncan
Mr. Peyton Neal, PRN Associates
Mr. Eric Massant, Congressional Information Service and
LEXIS/NEXIS
Ms. Alden Schacher
Library Associations
Ms. Prudence Adler, Association of Research Libraries
Ms. Mary Alice Baish, American Association of Law Libraries
Ms. Roxanne Fulcher, Special Libraries Association
Ms. Diane Garner, American Library Association/GODORT
Ms. Anne Heanue, American Library Association
Ms. Carol Henderson, American Library Association
Ms. Lynne Siemers, Medical Library Association
National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
(NCLIS)
Ms. Joan Challinor
Mr. Peter Young
Attachment K:
Comments from the Depository Library Council to the Public
Printer
Attachment K
Comments from the Depository Library Council to the Public
Printer
Statement of April 18, 1996
On April 18, 1996, there was a meeting of the FDLP Study working
group and advisors in order to provide the advisors with an
opportunity
to present their preliminary reactions to the draft Report to
Congress. The minutes of the meeting are provided as Attachment
J. This is the supplemental statement submitted by the Depository
Library Council to the Public Printer (DLC).
Statement of Daniel P. O'Mahony, Chair
Depository Library Council
On behalf of the Depository Library Council, I would like to
thank
the members of the Working Group for this opportunity to provide
you with direct input and our initial reactions to the Draft
Report
to Congress. We're especially grateful for your scheduling this
meeting at this time during the week of the Spring Council
Meeting
and Federal Depository Conference when many of us are here in
Washington and could meet with you.
I also want to acknowledge that the report was issued in
"draft"
form, and express our appreciation for the opportunity to comment
on the report at this stage. In addition to our remarks today,
the Depository Library Council will be submitting a more complete
written response to the Draft Report within the 60day comment
period.
Further, I'd like to commend the Working Group, not only for the
opportunities we've had throughout the study process to provide
input, but also for your listening to what we've said it's
obvious
that at each successive step in the process that the comments
from the depository library community have been
seriously considered by the Group, and the Draft Report reflects
that.
I think much of the initial reaction of members of the Depository
Library Council to the Draft Report was quite positive. The
report,
I think, reflects the original tone of the Senate report that
originally directed that the study be conducted namely, it tries
to take advantage of new information technologies to enhance and
improve public access to government information.
As a few people have mentioned already, many of us at this
meeting
this afternoon are, literally, coming directly from the GPO
Federal
Depository Library Conference and Spring Meeting of the
Depository
Library Council. Approximately 600 depository librarians from
all over the country gathered here in Washington this week for
these meetings, and for the better part of the past
threeandonehalf
days, we have been discussing the impact of this transition on
the citizens in our local communities and on
our services for government information.
There is a lot in the Draft Report to Congress that depository
librarians are pleased with the following is not a comprehensive
list, but briefly:
Depository librarians support a time frame that gives our
libraries,
our patrons, GPO, and government agencies, a realistic chance
for preparing for and adapting to the transition without major
detriment to our services for government information;
The Depository Library Council recommended the adoption of the
Principles of Federal Government Information and the Mission and
Goals for the FDLP, as stated in the Draft Report;
Depository librarians are excited about the potential for
expanding
and enhancing the array of government information available to
the public, as described in the Draft Report;
Depository librarians were pleased to see a recognition of the
need for governmentwide coordination for making federal
information
publicly accessible; and
Depository librarians agree that changes to Title 44 are
necessary
to facilitate the transition and ensure the statutory authority
of the program.
Depository librarians at the conference were also pleased to see
that the report stresses the traditional and ongoing services
and value of the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), and
extends these services into the electronic environment
specifically,
identifying and cataloging government information so people can
find it, retaining and preserving government information so
people
can continue to have access to it in the future, and providing
public services for government information that help people
effectively
utilize this information to meet their needs.
Librarians this past week, however, also expressed their concerns
that this transition should support and enhance public access
to government information, and it should not introduce new
technological,
financial, or other barriers to the public.
Much of the discussion this week focused on the need for
coordinated
and standardized bibliographic access providing the public with
information that enables them to identify and locate electronic
publications. In a decentralized and highly volatile electronic
environment, this cataloging or locator
information is absolutely critical, but it is also much more
complicated
to achieve and to maintain. It is imperative that GPO work
closely
with agencies from all branches of government to develop
coordinated,
coherent, and consistent means for identifying, locating, and
describing government information for
access by the public.
Closely related to this is the concern of ensuring that the
public
will be able to get to these electronic publications in the
future.
And sometimes that "future" is just a few days or weeks
away. Virtually every librarian at the conference could relate
firsthand to stories about user frustrations with the Internet
users from all types of libraries who were exasperated because
they couldn't find files that had changed
locations or disappeared altogether. As agencies' World Wide Web
and other computer sites evolve and the locations of electronic
files are changed, there needs to be a systematic and coordinated
mechanism within the FDLP to identify and track these changes.
Just as important, there must be an organized way to ensure that
these electronic publications will be retained and preserved so
that users can have continued and reliable access to this
information
in the future.
Librarians at the conference this week also described the present
limitations of the technical infrastructure and the difficulties
users encounter when trying to use electronic files. A number
of librarians told various "horror stories" about their
experiences in trying to download large files for patrons. In
many cases, people have to spend unreasonable amounts of time
or perform a complex sequence of steps to access, obtain, and
format the file(s) for viewing. One librarian on the west coast,
anxious to get a copy of the Draft Report to Congress on the GPO
Study, had to spend more than three hours downloading,
formatting,
and printing the appropriate files in order to obtain this
approximately
150page report. [This librarian was not, by the way, from a
small,
poorly connected and electronically challenged library, but from
a large academic research university with access to highend
equipment
and direct Internet connections.] Given this experience,
librarians
are not looking forward to the prospect of potentially having
to download, for example, a congressional hearing of several
hundred
pages or a 1,600 page bill on health care reform. Day in and day
out, some of users' most frustrating experiences occur when the
format that the publication is available in is not the most
appropriate
for the content of the information or the use the patron or the
publishing agency intended for it.
Many of the depository librarians here this week also were very
concerned about restrictions being placed on electronic
government
information, such as user or access fees and exclusive or
copyrightlike
restrictions. Increasingly we see examples such as the U.S.
Industrial
Outlook, Tide Tables, Foreign
Broadcast Information Service reports of information that as it
migrates to electronic format becomes less accessible to the
public
due to feebased or other restrictive agreements.
An underlying issue to many of these concerns, obviously, is cost
costs in terms of access, equipment, staff, support, training,
and other resources not only to libraries but to users as well.
The Depository Library Council and depository librarians have
serious concerns about the costs of a more
electronic FDLP, as well as the technical capabilities of
libraries,
agencies, and other partners in the program to take advantage
of new technologies. We strongly support the Technical
Implementation
Analysis requested in the Draft Report's Strategic Plan in order
to gather the critical data that is needed to
assist and evaluate the implementation of the transition.
So we have a number of concerns about the transition, but
depository
librarians are indeed excited about the potential for a more
electronic
FDLP for enhancing public access to government information,
because,
probably more than most, we understand and appreciate the
tremendous
advantages of some kinds of electronic information. Our
cautiousness
is borne out of our concern of the impact this transition is
likely
to have on the users of government information whom we serve
everyday.
On behalf of the Depository Library Council, I would like to
again
thank the members of the Working Group for this opportunity to
share with you our initial impressions of the Draft Report to
Congress, and we look forward to continuing the cooperative
relationship
developed throughout this study process, and the
opportunities for continued input and communication as the
transition
is implemented. Again, the Depository Library Council will be
submitting our more detailed written response to the Draft Report
to the Working Group by the end of May.
Comments of the Depository Library Council Regarding the
Draft Report to Congress
May 30, 1996
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Depository Library Council appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the Draft Report to Congress as well as our ongoing
participation throughout the study process as a member of the
Advisory Group to the Study Executive Working Group. The comments
below were derived from the discussions at the Spring 1996
Council
meeting in Arlington, VA, and the Fall 1995 Council meeting in
Memphis, TN. Attached to these comments are the Spring 1996
Council
recommendations to the Public Printer.
In summary, the Depository Library Council:
- -- supports the increased expansion and utilization of
electronic
technologies to enhance public access to government information;
- -- recommends the adoption of the "Principles of Federal
Government Information" and the "Mission and Goals for
the Federal Depository Library Program," as articulated in
the Draft Report;
- -- stresses the need for a reasonable time frame (57 years)
to
successfully implement the transition to a more electronic FDLP;
supports the Technical Implementation Analysis recommended in
the Draft Report;
- -- affirms the need for governmentwide coordination of
library
related services through the Superintendent of Documents to
facilitate
public access to government information, including cataloging,
preserving, and providing effective public services for
government
information in all formats;
- -- recommends the development of a strong and comprehensive
support
component (including training, standardized software,
documentation,
etc.) in the FDLP to assist libraries and users in accessing
electronic
government information;
- -- reaffirms the need for a variety of publication media and
the
viability of print as a costeffective format for disseminating
government information;
- -- agrees that changes to U.S.C. Title 44 are necessary to
facilitate
the transition, and that new incentives and compliance measures
are needed to ensure governmentwide participation and full access
to government information for the public;
- -- supports GPO's request for stable funding in order to
effect
a smooth and successful transition to a more electronic FDLP;
and
- -- urges that the migration to a more electronic FDLP should
not
erect new barriers for the public to access government
information.
Introduction
On March 29, 1996, the Government Printing Office (GPO) released
the Draft Report to Congress on the Study to Identify Measures
Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic
Federal
Depository Library Program. This study was required by Public
Law 10453, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996. This
Draft
Report was released by GPO in order to gather additional feedback
and input before issuing the final report.
The Depository Library Council has participated in the study as
a member organization of the Advisory Group to the Study
Executive
Working Group. Throughout the study process, the Working Group
has solicited input and encouraged comments from the library
community
and others. A number of the comments offered by the Depository
Library Council and other organizations already have been
incorporated
into various parts of the report as well as earlier and related
documents issued throughout the study process. The Council wishes
to express its appreciation for the opportunity to participate
in the study process. Further, we commend the Study Working Group
for including representatives from the depository library
community
on the Working Group and the Advisory Group, and for carefully
considering the input from the depository library community
throughout
the study process.
The comments below of the Depository Library Council were
developed
with input gathered at its Fall 1995 meeting in Memphis, TN
(approximately
150 depository librarians in attendance) and its Spring 1996
meeting
in Arlington, VA (approximately 550 depository librarians in
attendance).
Attached to these comments are the Spring 1996 recommendations
of Council to the Public Printer./5/
/5/ The recommendations of the Depository Library Council
begin
on page 202.
Response to the GPO Draft Report to Congress
The Draft Report to Congress is a forwardlooking and ambitious
outline for the future of the Federal Depository Library Program
(FDLP). The Draft Report recognizes the ever increasing use of
computerbased technology to produce, distribute, access, and
utilize
government information. The depository library community is
excited
about the potential for expanding and enhancing the array of
government
information available to the public.
In the Draft Report, GPO proposes a logical evolution for the
agency's focus of operations, shifting away from primarily
production
and distribution of physical items and moving more toward support
services for accessing and using electronic information sources.
Council supports the overall direction of the Draft Report and
the important goal of utilizing electronic technologies to
enhance
and improve public access to government information. Council
recommends
the adoption of the "Principles of Federal Government
Information"
and the "Mission and Goals for the FDLP," as stated
in the Draft Report.
The Depository Library Council believes that the timeline for
the transition to a more electronic FDLP must allow users,
libraries,
and federal agencies a realistic chance to prepare for and adapt
to these new technologies without major detriment to public
access
to government information. Council supports the 5 7 year initial
transition period outlined in the Draft Report. Further, Council
suggests that the ongoing transition to a more electronic system
of access should be viewed as an ongoing process rather than a
specific objective that can be accomplished in a predefined
period
of time. Rapid changes and developments in information
technologies
and dynamic user needs and demands will require a continuous
assessment
and evolution of the FDLP in order for the public and the program
to best take advantage of electronic information. We recommend
that GPO continue to work with other stakeholders to assess the
capabilities of program partners and their progress toward
implementing
and expanding access to electronic government information.
Furthermore,
Council urges Congress to provide adequate and stable funding
throughout the transition period in order to effect a smooth and
successful migration to a more electronic FDLP.
Council also believes that the transition to a more electronic
system must be based on objective data in order to accurately
determine costeffective and feasible alternatives for providing
public access to government information through the FDLP. Council
supports the Technical Implementation Analysis outlined in the
Draft Report and urges GPO to continue to pursue the means for
conducting this analysis.
In the highly decentralized electronic environment, Council
believes
that there is an increasing need for a centrally coordinated,
governmentwide program to facilitate public access to federal
government information, and reaffirms the role of the
Superintendent
of Documents in fulfilling this responsibility. One of the
strengths
of the Draft Report is its recognition that there is a need for
governmentwide coordination of the library related activities
involved in making information available to the public. Council
was pleased to see that the Draft Report stresses the traditional
and ongoing services and value of the FDLP, and extends these
services into the electronic environment. Specifically, these
areas include identifying and cataloging government information
so people can find it, retaining and preserving government
information
so people can continue to have access to it in the future, and
providing public services for government information that enable
people to effectively utilize this information to meet their
needs.
Bibliographic Access
Council supports GPO's continued commitment to providing
coordinated
bibliographic access to federal information and encourages GPO
to take a leadership role in developing effective strategies for
cataloging electronic sources of government information.
Libraries
and users rely upon GPO's cataloging records to identify and
locate
government publications, and this need will only increase in a
dynamic electronic environment. Standardized records that
describe
the information content and that direct users to corresponding
print and electronic versions of the information are most
desirable.
Council is particularly concerned about retaining bibliographic
access to the historical record as electronic information sources
are moved to new locations or transferred to different agencies
(e.g., NARA). Without ongoing and coordinated procedures for
ensuring
bibliographic control, the location and very existence of
specific
sources may be lost, and thus the information underutilized,
resulting
in a waste of taxpayers' money and an increase in public
frustration
in locating government information. Council also sees the
necessity
for maintaining a system of uniquely identifying each electronic
resource (i.e., the Superintendent of Documents Classification
System). Since online locations (i.e., Universal Resource
Locators
or URLs) can change frequently, it is desirable to have a unique
identifier, similar to an ISBN (International Standard Book
Number)
or ISSN (International Standard Serial Number) in order to verify
and track an information resource.
Council encourages GPO to take a leadership role in working with
the library and federal publishing communities to develop
standardized
cataloging policies and practices that address these issues. It
is imperative that GPO work closely with agencies from all
branches
of government to develop coordinated, coherent, and consistent
means for identifying, locating, and describing government
information
for access by the public. Council is concerned because, although
the Draft Report recognizes the value of the FDLP as a central
coordinating agency, a legislative proposal advanced by the
Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) does not address the issue of how
the cataloging function would be achieved without GPO's presence
in the publication/dissemination loop. We recommend that GPO seek
common ground with OMB in order to ensure that federal
information
policies and practices provide for this important service.
Retention, Preservation, and Longterm Access
The public's needs for government information are diverse and
oftentimes require the identification and use of historical
information.
This need traditionally has been met by the historical
collections
maintained in geographically-dispersed depository libraries.
Council
strongly believes that the public's longterm ability to access
government information must be maintained throughout the
migration
to electronic formats, and that the necessary legislative and
administrative safeguards must be established to ensure the
preservation
and longterm access to electronic government information.
Governmentwide policies and procedures must be developed that
systematically identify and retain electronic government
publications
for continued access and use by the public. Current publishing
practices via the Internet are inconsistent and unstable as
information
appears and disappears seemingly at whim. Users' frustrations
in accessing electronic information are exacerbated by frequently
changing Internet addresses. Moreover, information is lost as
agencies update or replace files with subsequent or the most
current
data. Coordinated, government wide mechanisms are necessary to
ensure that electronic government information is retained and
preserved for ongoing public access and use. Further, the federal
government must investigate ways to secure the integrity of the
information published electronically so that users can be assured
of the accuracy and reliability of the data.
It is vital that procedures be established to guarantee the
permanent
availability of important public information in usable electronic
formats. Currently, many of these files are referred to the
National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for permanent
retention.
However, NARA does not retain electronic information for which
there is no source documentation. Furthermore, NARA converts
information
data files to the lowest common source format, such and ASCII,
and NARA does not retain distinct software interfaces for
electronic
databases. This oftentimes renders these files unusable and
virtually
worthless to researchers in the future. Polices and procedures
need to be developed through a concerted effort with NARA to
guarantee
that electronic government information remains readily accessible
and usable to the public.
Council applauds GPO's recognition of the responsibility of the
federal government to preserve and provide longterm access to
electronic government information. Council is concerned, however,
that the loss of redundant sites for housing and servicing
government
information sources will impair both long term and current public
access to these sources. One of the proven strengths of the FDLP
has been its success in ensuring longterm access to government
publications for the public at large through its Regional system
of geographically-dispersed libraries. This cooperative system
guarantees that adequate copies of government publications will
be available for future users. Since these collections reside
in and are serviced by various libraries of all types, they are
less susceptible to the possible vicissitudes in political or
budgetary support of any single authority, as well as the
numerous
natural and physical disasters that can strike anywhere. In the
electronic environment, a similar system of "mirror"
or remote sites will be required to ensure continued, flexible,
and reliable access to electronic government information. The
federal government furloughs of Fall 1995 are an excellent
example
of how single or exclusive sources of electronic information can
unexpectedly shut down and leave users cut off from important
government information. Council encourages GPO to explore
partnerships
or cooperative agreements with libraries, federal and state
agencies,
regional networks and consortia, research institutions, and other
public service providers, to preserve and ensure long term, nofee
public access to electronic government information. In addition,
Council believes that the wide distribution of physical
electronic
products (e.g., CDROMs) enhances current and future public access
by providing libraries and users with local access to electronic
government information sources.
Service to the Public
Federal depository libraries have worked in partnership with GPO
and federal agencies for over a century to provide the public
with nofee access to government information in all formats. No
other sector of the information landscape is set up to deal with
the nation's government information needs at the local community
level. While each federal agency has its own specific
constituency
that it serves, generally these groups are very narrowly focused,
and most times the agency is able to supply only the most current
data or information. The FDLP is the primary means for the
general
public to gain nofee access to all types of government
information.
The transition to a more electronic FDLP will require libraries
to assume new roles in this partnership and reallocate local
resources
in order to deliver effective services to the public. The time
frame for this transition must allow libraries sufficient
preparation
time for planning, acquiring and installing equipment, training
staff, and developing services for a predominantly electronic
environment.
Depository libraries and federal publishing agencies have made
tremendous strides in recent years to make electronic government
information accessible to the public at large. Nonetheless, the
necessary technical infrastructure is not yet in place to
reliably
and consistently support a predominantly electronic FDLP. Users
continue to face technical limitations in using the Internet and
experience a variety of difficulties when trying to access and
use electronic files. In many cases, people have had to spend
unreasonable amounts of time to perform complex sequences of
tasks
in order to access, download, and format a file simply to be able
to view the information.
As GPO plans for a more electronic FDLP, it is imperative that
it develop a comprehensive and reliable support infrastructure
to assist users and libraries in accessing and utilizing
electronic
government information. This should include providing training
for librarians and users; supplying well conceived online and
offline tutorials; facilitating the development of standardized
software applications and user interfaces; developing logical
and wellorganized documentation and user guides; and coordinating
other services that facilitate the use of electronic government
information products.
This transition will have a significant financial impact on
depository
libraries. Council shares the concern of depository librarians
that additional costs to libraries and users associated with
managing,
accessing, retrieving, downloading, and printing electronic
information
will hinder public access. Again, Council recommends that a
systemwide
cost analysis of the effects of electronic dissemination, and
a survey of the technological capabilities of all program
partners
(agencies, libraries, and the public), are essential in order
to gather the fundamental data necessary for planning and
implementing
a successful transition to a more electronic FDLP.
It is imperative that, throughout the transition and
implementation
of any new system, the public retain nofee access to government
information in all formats through the network of depository
libraries.
Council supports the legislative proposals in the Draft Report,
as well as any resulting interagency agreements, that uphold and
facilitate nofee public access by providing electronic government
information at no charge to depository libraries. The primary
objective should continue to be to improve public access to
government
information in ways that are meaningful and equitable for users
and economical and costefficient for taxpayers and the system.
Appropriate Formats and the Viability of Print
Council is pleased that the Draft Report recognizes the ongoing
need for a variety of publication formats, including paper, in
order to meet the government information needs of the public.
Simply stated, not all information is appropriate for electronic
format only. Council firmly believes that the distribution format
for information products must be appropriate to the information's
content, use, and intended audience.
Council is concerned about the effective costshift to users
created
by a predominantly electronic system. The format preferred by
users for communicating textual information continues to be print
on paper. Information having important historical value,
publications
meant to be read in their entirety or in context (like most books
or journals or congressional hearings), and publications with
a significant amount of graphic or photo images, are all
excellent
candidates for print. For these materials, centralized printing
and distribution remains the most efficient and costeffective
model for the system, for libraries, for the environment, and
for users. A dramatic shift to electroniconly dissemination would
likely limit public access to only those with the ability to pay
for printing, copying, or buying government publications.
Program Compliance
Council is concerned about the increasing instances of
restrictions
placed on government information that inhibit public access. A
number of factors including conflicting legislative directives
and costrecovery mandates, publishing contracts that circumvent
the FDLP, exclusive agreements that provide copyright like
restrictions,
inadequate appropriations for public information dissemination,
and growing pressures to generate revenues from information
products
work to effectively deny the public access to government
information.
When government information falls outside the FDLP, it becomes
much more difficult for the public to find it, to access it, and
to use it. There is no guarantee that the information will be
cataloged or preserved, and fees and other barriers may further
restrict public access and limit its usefulness. Council supports
in concept the definitions and statutory changes to U.S.C. Title
44 proposed in Task 6 of the Draft Report (Attachment D5:
Evaluation
of Current Laws Governing the FDLP and Recommendation of
Legislative
Changes). Moreover, Council urges GPO to work with Congress, OMB,
and federal publishing agencies to develop positive incentives
and effective enforcement measures to ensure public access to
government information through the FDLP.
Conclusion
The Depository Library Council and the depository library
community
have long advocated increased access to and utilization of
government
information in electronic format. Depository librarians are
excited
about the potential for a more electronic FDLP for enhancing
public
access to government information because, probably more than
most,
they understand and appreciate the tremendous advantages of
electronic
technologies. As Congress, GPO, federal agencies, libraries, and
users plan for a more electronic system for accessing government
information, we should build upon the many strengths and
successes
of the FDLP, and we must be careful not to introduce new
technological,
financial, or other barriers that restrict public access to
government
information.
Daniel P. O'Mahony
Government Documents Coordinator
Brown University Library Box A
Providence, RI 02912
[Recommendations from the Spring 1996 meeting of the Depository
Library Council are included below.]
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE
DEPOSITORY LIBRARY COUNCIL TO THE PUBLIC PRINTER
Spring 1996
Submitted May 24, 1996
GPO STUDY ISSUES
1. Council commends the Government Printing Office for completing
the Congressionally directed Study to Identify Measures for a
Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository
Library Program, for including representatives from the library
community on the Study Executive Working Group and Advisory
Group,
and for carefully considering the input of depository libraries
throughout the study process.
2. Council supports the "Principles for Federal Government
Information" and the "Missions and Goals for the
FDLP,"
as stated in the draft Report to Congress, and Council recommends
the adoption of these statements for the FDLP.
3. Council commends GPO for adopting a fiveyear time frame for
the initial transition to a more electronic FDLP, and recommends
that GPO continue to work with the library community, federal
agencies, and other appropriate parties, to assess the
capabilities
of program partners, and their progress towards implementing and
expanding access to electronic government information.
4. Council recommends that the Public Printer seek common ground
with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on federal policy
that would achieve an appropriate degree of governmentwide
coherence
in public information as has traditionally been accomplished
through
centralized cataloging.
RATIONALE: Given the huge volume and diversity of information
produced and/or disseminated by the federal government,
descriptive
cataloging which continues to allow libraries and other
information
providers to incorporate electronic resources into existing
location
mechanisms is of fundamental importance for public access. This
is an even greater imperative as more information moves toward
intangible electronic products. Yet, it does not seem that the
OMB legislative proposal specifically addresses how the
cataloging
function would be achieved without GPO in the publishing loop.
Council is hopeful that a constructive discussion with OMB on
this specific topic of cataloging would provide important
insights
on all sides of the issue.
5. Council commends GPO for its aggressive and creative proposals
for expanding access to government information and providing
access
to previously fugitive government information.
6. Council supports the Technical Implementation Analysis
outlined
in the draft Report to Congress and urges GPO to continue to
pursue
the means for conducting this analysis.
RATIONALE: Council remains concerned that the transition to a
more electronic Federal Depository Library Program continues to
proceed without fundamental data necessary to determine the most
costeffective and feasible alternatives for providing access to
electronic government information to the public through the FDLP.
Data is needed for analysis: from publishers in all three
branches
of government to determine their expected current and longterm
electronic publishing plans; and from depository libraries to
determine their present and nearterm technological capabilities,
including equipment, skills of staff, and electronic technologies
best suited to meet user needs. Data is also needed to address
issues raised in the Technical Implementation Assistance
(Appendix
A) section of the draft Report to Congress.
REVISION OF U.S.C. TITLE 44
1. Council supports in concept the definitions of government
information,
government information product, and government electronic
information
services as articulated in the draft Report to Congress. Council
recommends that GPO continue to work with Congress and the
library
community to identify and recommend legislative changes necessary
for a successful transition to a more electronic FDLP.
RATIONALE: The definitions make useful distinctions which should
be incorporated in revisions to Title 44 of the United States
Code. They are not technologyspecific and will permit the
statutory
definitions to continue to provide direction even as
technological
changes occur in information formats. GPO has the experience,
broad perspective, and involvement with the user community that
are essential for productive revision of Title 44 to ensure
effective
access to government information.
2. Council affirms the role of the Superintendent of Documents
in the governmentwide coordination of public access to government
information, including the preservation, retention, and longterm
access of government information, as articulated in the draft
Report to the Congress.
RATIONALE: Historically, GPO has provided the central
coordinating
authority for distribution of print products and has recently
moved into a new role as a provider of online information
services.
The Superintendent of Documents (SOD) has a proven history of
strong and effective involvement with its user community. The
SOD has provided bibliographic access and a mechanism for
longterm
access to federal government information for more than onehundred
years. No other federal agency has the experience and commitment
to broad public access that the SOD can provide. Throughout this
period of rapid transition and changing technologies, the
guidance
and assistance of the Superintendent of Documents is critical
in order to meet the challenge of maintaining public access to
government information.
APPROPRIATE FORMATS
1. Council commends GPO for a timely test of the accuracy,
feasibility,
and cost implications of scanning paper publications for
electronic
dissemination to depositories. The depository library community
is concerned about GPO's conclusion that graphicintensive
publications
of less that thirty pages in length are candidates for electronic
conversion. Council notes that these publications are often
intended
for public dissemination for informational purposes by the
agency.
These titles may not be suitable for their intended audience in
electronic format and may present printing problems for
depository
libraries and users.
2. Council reaffirms the principle that paper is a viable format
for disseminating government information. When choosing
publications
for scanning, Council reminds GPO that a basic assumption stated
in the Strategic Plan is that paper and microfiche will continue
to be distributed when appropriate for user needs.
RATIONALE: Council remains concerned that, while GPO and the
other
participants of the study process have formally recognized the
importance of paper as an appropriate format, the short term
economic
benefit of electronic conversion will overshadow this principle.
Council, as an advisory body to the Public Printer, wishes to
keep the issue of appropriate information media squarely before
GPO, and recommends that this principle be reinforced during any
deliberations and plans regarding dissemination formats.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC ACCESS ISSUES
1. Council applauds the efforts of the Electronic Transition Team
and the Cataloging Branch to develop diverse and creative
approaches
toward providing bibliographic access to government information
in electronic formats. However, Council recommends that GPO
provide
a mechanism that will search these multiple directories
simultaneously.
Alternatively, Council suggests merging the files of the Pathway
List of Titles and the Bibliographic Records Project so that
those
items residing at GPO sites will be searched along with those
items residing at other federal government agency sites.
RATIONALE: Council sees significant advantages in providing for
such simultaneous searching capabilities. As the amount of
government
information on the Internet increases, it will be increasingly
difficult to track or separate, for searching purposes,
information
residing at GPO sites and government information residing
elsewhere.
There are potential advantages for GPO in this approach as well.
Since the Pathway List of Titles and the Bibliographic Records
Project both provide title level access to electronic government
information products, the efforts directed toward the two
projects
could be consolidated to create one unified title index.
2. Council recommends that GPO develop and incorporate, within
its suite of Pathway Government Electronic Products, records that
communicate "continues" and "continued by"
notes, as well as previous format statements. Council further
recommends that depository libraries be notified when
print/microfiche
titles are replaced by electronic, Internetaccessible titles.
RATIONALE: In this very dynamic environment of electronic
government
information, it is essential that records contain sufficient
information
for depository librarians to provide accurate and efficient
service.
This includes, but is not limited to, being able to tell a patron
that prior to this date this title was distributed to depository
libraries in paper/fiche or after this date this title was made
available via the Internet at this URL (universal resource
locator).
Communication of this information is also necessary so that
similar
notations may be made in local shelflists and/or OPAC (online
public access catalog) entries.
3. Council supports the Library Program Service (LPS) proposal
that a Superintendent of Documents (SuDocs) classification stem
and an accession number be assigned to each government
information
product accessible via GPO Access to partially serve as a unique
locator.
RATIONALE: Provision of a classification number with a SuDocs
stem represents a transitional middle ground which will assist
depository librarians to relate Internet sources to previously
printed information and help to identify the provenance of
electronic
publications. It is anticipated that in the future this program
may be superseded by other programs, such as the Persistent
Uniform
Resource Locator (PURL) that is under development
internationally.
RETENTION, PRESERVATION, AND LONGTERM ACCESS
ISSUES
1. Council affirms that the federal government has the
responsibility
to ensure that government information is preserved. All
government
information made available to the public through GPO Access, as
well as information at federal agency sites to which the public
is directed by GPO Pathways, should be considered federal
depository
information and should be preserved in perpetuity unless
determined
otherwise by the Superintendent of Documents.
RATIONALE: In the increasingly decentralized electronic
environment
within the federal government, it has become increasingly
difficult
to ensure that all government information is identified and
becomes
a candidate for retention, access, and preservation.
Consequently,
a centralized coordinating authority such as the Superintendent
of Documents is more necessary than ever. In the absence of a
central authority that identifies government information worthy
of retention, much valuable information may be lost forever.
2. Council recommends that the Public Printer coordinate with
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to
develop
plans for preserving material and to determine the categories
of material that NARA will maintain.
RATIONALE: NARA's current practices and policies probably would
not ensure that all important public information in electronic
formats would be preserved for posterity. For instance, NARA does
not currently retain electronic information for which there is
no source documentation. Further, NARA converts information to
the lowest common source format, such as ASCII, and does not
retain
distinct software interfaces for databases. Council recommends
that GPO, in discussion with NARA, adopt the principle that
information
retired to NARA will, insofar as possible, be as accessible as
before it was retired; in other word, the information should be
complete, searchable, and available when it is needed by the
user.
For electronic information that NARA will not be maintaining,
or for information to which NARA cannot ensure adequate access,
GPO and the depository library community should look for other
partners willing to maintain access to the information.
3. In providing guidance on partnerships between libraries and
other nongovernmental entities (as recommended by Council in Fall
1995), GPO should stress the importance of providing for longterm
access and identifying responsibilities for archiving data.
RATIONALE: Council recognizes the number of partnerships being
formed between depository libraries and federal agencies for
accessing
electronic information. Council views these arrangements as a
positive trend in the transition to an electronic depository
library
system. Increasing the number of sites housing electronic
government
information can help ensure longterm access. However, Council
believes LPS should develop model agreements which libraries can
use in negotiating with federal agencies. The model agreements
will help ensure that libraries and agencies consider minimum
standards for technical and service issues including archiving
data for longterm access. In addition, model agreements will
allow
LPS to serve as a central source for information on electronic
partnerships for federal government information.
TRAINING AND COMMUNICATIONS ISSUES
1. Council recommends that GPO offer a training component at the
Fall Depository Library Council Meeting in Salt Lake City.
Council
offers its assistance with planning and, as appropriate,
providing
some of the training.
RATIONALE: Training continues to be eagerly sought by government
information specialists. The success of the recent Spring
Conference
is ample testimony to this fact. In its Strategic Plan, FY 1996
FY 2001, GPO identified training as one of several support
services
it should provide to libraries and librarians (p. 11). Council
recognizes that the training sessions at the Fall meeting
probably
cannot be as elaborate as those provided at the Spring
Conference,
however, with the addition of an extra half day to the schedule
to accommodate Council's need for daytime work sessions, extra
time could also be devoted to training. Council believes that
with creative planning the costs of providing training sessions
could be minimized. Providing such opportunities for professional
growth would also enhance GPO's image within the depository
library
community.
2. Council encourages the GPO staff involved in writing
documentation
for electronic products to work with gateway libraries and other
interested librarians (i.e. technical support personnel) to
create
userfriendly documentation. Council is pleased to offer its
assistance
in the organization of such a group which would develop a
mechanism
for facilitating coordination and communication between those
individuals involved with writing userfriendly documentation and
others who would advise them.
RATIONALE: Council is mindful of the dedication and effort that
the GPO staff exert in the writing of documentation for
electronic
information products. We believe that with greater involvement
from the user community, the task would be less burdensome for
GPO and provide an increased amount of user friendly
documentation.
3. Council recommends that GPO establish an official mechanism
that enables them to communicate electronically with depository
libraries.
RATIONALE: This "official" communications channel
should
have the capability to enable GPO to disseminate official,
systemwide
communications as well as receive information from the depository
libraries. Types of communication activity should include (but
not be limited to) conducting surveys in a timely manner, posting
Administrative Notes and other information tools, initiating
claims,
disseminating news releases and announcements, etc. This
mechanism
is not intended to be used as a discussion forum.
GPO OPERATIONAL AND TECHNICAL ISSUES
1. Council recommends that GPO set as a high priority supplying
GPO cataloging personnel with adequate computer equipment,
Internet
accessibility, and appropriate software so that they can carry
out their responsibilities.
RATIONALE: As the central coordinating authority for
bibliographic
access to electronic federal government information, it is
imperative
that GPO staff have the necessary technical infrastructure,
equipment,
and support in place in order to identify, catalog, and monitor
government Internet sources and provide necessary bibliographic
access to these sources for libraries and users.
2. Council recommends that GPO take full advantage of its world
wide web site to provide the broadest access to information about
the Federal Depository Library Program and databases and
resources
such as the Publications Reference File (PRF).
3. Council recommends that GPO invest in Universal Resource
Locator
(URL) verification software.
RATIONALE: The present world wide web URL technology is not
designed
to have any reliable amount of persistence. Consequently, a
significant
portion of the information referenced with URLs becomes lost on
a weekly basis. The URL verification software cannot fix broken
URLs, but it can at least demonstrate which URLs seem to have
become obsolete at the time the URL verification was attempted.
These URLs might then be considered for elimination or relocation
to the new URL.
Daniel P. O'Mahony
Government Documents Coordinator
Brown University Library Box A
Providence, RI 02912
Attachment L:
Comments from the Information Industry Association
Attachment L
Information Industry Association Comments in Response to:
The Government Printing Office's
Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition
to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program
Submitted May 24, 1996
The Information Industry Association ("IIA") submits
the following comments in response to the Government Printing
Office's (GPO) Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a
Successful
Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library
Program.
IIA is aware that other similar studies and some legislative
proposals
contemplate electronic dissemination of federal government
information
by legislative or executive agencies other than GPO. Our comments
in no way should imply that we either support or reject GPO's
approach or that we will not consider other options as they are
forwarded. Further, our general comments below especially those
relating to information dissemination principles would apply to
any agency, or any entity "standing in the shoes" of
an agency, which is distributing federal government information
to the public.
Information Industry Association
IIA is the trade association of leading companies involved in
the creation, distribution and use of information products,
services
and technologies. Our 550 corporate members range from large
multinationals
to entrepreneurial startups, and include traditional and
electronic
publishers, database producers and providers, interactive
electronic
services (audio and video), computer manufacturers, software
developers,
financial information services, and telecommunications providers.
Since IIA's founding in 1968, sound government information
dissemination
policy has been one of our paramount public policy goals. IIA
has been active in helping formulate policies that both support
the government's affirmative obligation to provide information
that it maintains and sustain the ability of citizens to obtain
information by and about their government from nongovernmental
providers, including private sector re-disseminators. Over the
years, IIA has been an active participant in discussions with
the Government Printing Office (GPO) regarding its information
dissemination programs and policies, and we are currently serving
as one of the designated advisors to this Study.
IIA member companies develop and distribute innovative
information
products and services to meet the information needs of American
academics, businesses, professionals, researchers, and the
general
public. Many of these products and services are based on, or
include,
information originating in the federal government including
Congress.
Our member companies add value to this information in a variety
of ways: by assembling and editing government information; by
arranging and organizing it in useful ways; by combining it with
information from other sources; by adding indexing,
crossreferencing
and annotating; and by updating and expanding databases to make
sure that they are comprehensive, timely and accurate.
Information
companies then distribute these valueadded products to the public
in convenient, useful and userfriendly formats including hard
copy, microform, and a range of electronic dissemination media
and provide ongoing customer service (often comprehensive,
roundtheclock
customer support) to make sure that the customer's information
needs are being satisfied to the greatest extent possible. In
fact, many members of Congress, the executive branch, the courts
and their staffs rely on information developed and maintained
by the private sector. In short, a mature, valueadded information
industry has developed around the rich and diverse resource of
federal government information and continues to serve the needs
of a large portion of the American public.
General Interest of the Information Industry Association
IIA commends Congress for requiring and GPO for carrying out this
Study which documents many of the practical and policy
considerations
necessary for the transition to an electronic Federal Depository
Library Program (FDLP). As experts in the dissemination of
information
to the public, we recognize that there are many complex issues
with which to grapple, and that it is a very difficult process
to reformulate delivery of government information services for
the digital age. Thus, as the transition occurs, we believe it
is critical that Congress and GPO continue to reach out to the
public and private sector users of GPO information for advise
and comment. In general, IIA believes GPO has done a good job
of pinpointing the needs of the library community and balancing
those needs with limited budgetary resources.
In addition, IIA supports the underlying goals of the Congress
and of GPO in its Study efforts, namely to improve the
dissemination
of federal government information, and to improve and streamline
the operations of the legislative branch. Further, we remain
supportive
of a Federal Depository Library Program designed to provide
access
to government information to those citizens who have neither the
desire nor the means to inform themselves about government in
other ways. We do not support, however, and are concerned by the
premise of the Study that GPO should try to be all things to all
people. Rather, in our view, the goals outlined in the Study can
best be met by a partnership among a range of public and private
sector institutions, including the information industry, the
education
and library communities, and all parts of the federal government.
While the GPO Study focuses very specifically on dissemination
of federal agency and congressional information to the FDLP,
policies
established by the Study and the forthcoming recommendations for
legislative changes to Title 44 could ultimately set important
precedents for general dissemination by the federal government
beyond the FDLP. These policies in turn, could affect how
information
companies access and disseminate information to their customers,
who are also members of the public. In addition, private sector
information companies and their users rely on GPO for access to
both federal agency and congressional information through GPO
sales program and GPO Access system, and policies recommended
in this Study could also affect that access.
Over the years, GPO has been a consistent and reliable source
of the information it provides. This consistency can be
attributed
to the fact that, by and large, GPO has disseminated the
information
it maintains under responsible policy guidelines similar to those
mandated for federal agencies by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, (hereinafter P.L. 10413). We are pleased to note that in
the Study, GPO mentions P.L. 10413, and reiterates some of the
important information dissemination principles mandated by the
law. GPO's current dissemination practices and its restatement
of support for the mandates of the law reinforces the idea that
the private sector plays a critical role in ensuring that more
government information gets into the hands of more citizens in
ways that are most useful to them. However, we believe it is
important
to do more than simply state support for the principles contained
in P.L. 10413, we advocate that GPO or any other legislative
branch
information disseminator be required to adhere to the information
policies outlined in P.L. 10413 by adopting a statutory
requirement.
The primary issue of interest for the information industry is
insuring that open and unfettered access to the information
remain
intact so that we can continue to deliver the world's most
comprehensive,
timely and informative knowledge products to the American public.
With regard to transition by GPO to an electronic FDLP and the
dissemination of executive branch information, P.L. 10413 assures
that executive agencies in a decentralized system abide by a set
of principles for dissemination. However, no such principles
currently
apply to the legislative or judicial branches. To ensure a wide
variety of information disseminators and to foster private sector
investment and innovation in information products, we suggest
that as Title 44 legislative changes are considered, a
requirement
be added that legislative branch agencies also abide by the
principles
contained in P.L. 10413. Specifically, those principles include:
Seeking timely public input and responding to concerns prior to
initiating, discontinuing, or modifying any information products
or services;
Promoting a diversity of sources and ensuring that no one gains
an exclusive right to the information. (Legislative Branch
Agencies
should be required to give all members of the public, including
private sector re-disseminators, equal and timely access to all
taxpayerfunded materials specifically the underlying agency data
at no more than the cost of dissemination); and
Refraining from placing copyrightlike controls on the materials
such as: granting exclusive contracts; charging royalties; or
placing downstream use restrictions on the information.
Adoption of legislative mandates similar to those in P.L. 10413
is one thing. Equally important is compliance with the law, and
IIA would urge the drafters of Title 44 reforms also formulate
strong measures to assure that legislative branch agencies adhere
to statutory mandates once they are enacted. This has not always
been the case with executive branch agency compliance with P.L.
10413.
Since October of last year, several executive branch agencies
have instituted policies, products and services which ignore the
information dissemination mandates of the law. As mentioned
above,
requiring adherence to these types of dissemination policies is
crucial if the federal government is to ensure that information
will continue to be made available as the FDLP and the agencies
transition to a decentralized electronic environment.
Issues of Concern/Interest Contained in the Study
With regard to the Study, we have both general concerns and
specific
concerns. Generally, the Study suggests that GPO's role of
duplicator
and disseminator of federal government information be
dramatically
redefined to that of publisher. Throughout the Study, this type
of approach suggests that GPO is trying to be all things to all
the users actual and potential of government information that
comes through GPO.
The difference between the two types of roles disseminator versus
publisher is critically important. GPO has been and continues
to be the sole source for some federal government information.
Because GPO is the only source, it is crucial that the integrity
of the information be preserved. This preservation could be
jeopardized
should GPO begin making editorial decisions about the federal
government information it disseminates.
Specifically, the Study is replete with references to the notion
that government information should be standardized and the FDLP
should be the catalyst for this standardization. If agencies
don't
choose the standard formats GPO determines are useful, GPO could
then convert agency publications to one that GPO finds
acceptable.
We believe decisions about information creation, including
formatting,
is solely the responsibility of the originating agencies and
should
be based on the statutory authority and legitimate needs of
agencies.
All editorial control belongs with the originating agencies. GPO,
on the other hand, is a printer, manufacturer, sales agent and
distributor for government publications, but not a publisher.
It does not now, never has in the past, and never should in the
future exercise editorial control over government publications.
In addition, GPO's belief that standardization of government
information
will aid the private sector is illfounded. While some benefit
may accrue, it is more likely that additional formatting by GPO
will increase costs for information companies and their
customers.
Therefore, it is much more important for industry to have access
to the underlying data.
Providing "information in formats appropriate to the needs
of users and intended usage," as is suggested goal number
three of the Study, is a significant part of what private sector
information companies already do. While GPO is an important
source
of information to the FDLP, many of the depository libraries also
purchase private sector products which help them tailor their
information acquisition needs to their specific users or markets.
Goal three implies that GPO would transform agency information
products into new products or services designed to meet the many
varying needs of the numerous users of GPO information. This
would
place GPO in a publishing role attempting to compete directly
with the private sector information providers and would divert
GPO and its limited resources from the focus on dissemination
of basic electronic government information.
To avoid such a situation and ensure the widest possible
diversity
of sources of government information, we stress again the
importance
of requiring that GPO and other legislative branch agencies be
held to the same information dissemination standards as are set
out in P.L. 10413. Especially important in this context is the
notion that the authentic underlying agency data be provided to
any and all users on an equal and timely basis and that it be
provided at no more than the cost of dissemination.
These provisions are also important to ensure that agencies do
not obtain a competitive advantage over private sector
information
companies. The statutory tenets in P.L. 10413 recognize that
identifying
other products and services in the marketplace helps agencies
avoid undermining the existing diversity of information sources
minimizes unnecessary competition with the private sector. The
legislative history of P.L. 10413 is replete with supporting
references
to this idea. The House Committee Report, for example, states
that agencies should "encourage a diversity of providers
in the private and public sectors, while avoiding unnecessary
duplication of effort" and should "also take advantage
of (and not unnecessarily duplicate) private sector initiatives
that may more efficiently or effectively serve the same
ends."
The Study also includes a list of goals for the FDLP some of
which
raise concern. Part of goal II is; "to expand the array of
Federal information products and services made available through
the FDLP." Again, in an environment of shrinking budgets
we question the wisdom of expanding products or services
which may duplicate other current or future products in the
market.
Here we emphasize that there is a significant difference between
improving access to information and trying to anticipate the
needs
of all users.
In addition, it is important to note that libraries are currently
overwhelmed with the storage and maintenance requirements
associated
with the information they receive through the FDLP. Rather than
looking at ways to expand products and services made available
by GPO, the FDLP might be better served by being given the
flexibility
to use moneys appropriated by Congress to purchase government
information products and services from whomever they choose.
The GPO Study also raises some important policy issues which will
have far broader implications for dissemination of, and access
to, federal government information than those associated with
dissemination to the FDLP. For instance; Issue 1. (A) addresses
the definition and scope of what constitutes a government
publication,
and (B) the necessity of finding means to "assure the
authenticity
of Government information in the FDLP." We agree citizens
need to know which electronic publications federal agencies
release
are "official" documents and federal agencies need to
provide the means to address this issue in the electronic
environment.
We also recognize that Title 44 needs to provide flexibility to
allow electronic publications to be considered official
publications.
However, when addressing issues such as authentication of
government
information, and the scope of information to be included in the
FDLP, the government should assure that it does not raise
unnecessary
barriers to further use of the information, which will have a
chilling affect on private industry and ultimately reduce access
by those in the public who are our customers.
Finally, the Study raises and even acknowledges that converting
to a fully electronic dissemination system does not necessarily
save money for GPO or for the users of the FDLP the depository
libraries. We recognize that the Study contains a recommendation
that mirrors a proposal before Congress to provide federal
taxpayer
dollars to aid the depository libraries in improving technology
and training for accessing electronic information. IIA does not
object to this request. We believe that the decision should be
left to Congress.
However, if the goal is to serve the depository library users
in better, more efficient and economic ways, and Congress
determines
that funding should be allocated for this purpose, IIA would
recommend
that consideration be given to allowing libraries to determine
how best to spend these funds. By providing flexibility in
funding,
libraries will be given the opportunity to determine if the funds
would best be spent on technology improvements, or on training,
or possibly to purchase private sector products that meet each
individual library's and its specific user needs.
Furthermore, should Congress support this funding, IIA does have
an important concern. Because this technology would ultimately
be used for accessing nongovernmental, proprietary information,
we would suggest that any money granted for training purposes
require that this training by whomever administers it adequately
inform all library patrons about the importance of respecting
intellectual property in electronic formats.
Conclusion
As the legislative, executive and judicial branches move toward
electronic dissemination of the public information they create,
there are and will continue to be many thoughtprovoking and
challenging
issues with which to grapple. We support both Congress and GPO
in efforts thus far to move the FDLP into the world of digital,
electronic dissemination and believe that many important issues
have been raised and good recommendations made. Now is the proper
time for the evaluation of GPO and the FDLP roles in this
transition.
While trying to craft solutions to these complex issues, it is
crucial that these decisions be made with the clear understanding
that they can and will have implications for a broad segment of
society including individual citizens, libraries, nonprofits as
well as the information industry and its customers. In order to
assure that the United States continues to foster the most open,
democratic society and the most successful, productive
information
industry in the world, it is imperative that governmental and
judicial entities adhere to the information policies such as
those
contained in P.L. 10413.
Attachment M:
Comments from the Library Associations
Attachment M
Comments from the Library Associations
On April 18, 1996, there was a meeting of the FDLP Study working
group and advisors in order to provide the advisors with an
opportunity
to present their preliminary reactions to the draft report to
Congress. The minutes of the meeting are provided as Attachment
J. This attachment includes the supplemental statement submitted
by the library association advisors as a letter to the Public
Printer, dated April 24, 1996.
A second letter was submitted on May 24, 1996, providing
additional
comments on the FDLP Study, including a number of enclosures with
respect to specific task force reports. Both letters were
submitted
on behalf of the following associations:
American Association of Law Libraries (AALL)
American Library Association (ALA), including the ALA Government
Documents Roundtable (GODORT)
Association of Research Libraries (ARL)
Special Libraries Association (SLA)
The Medical Library Association (MLA) also participated as an
advisor to the FDLP Study, but did not join in these comments.
April 26, 1996
Michael F. DiMario
Public Printer
U.S. Government Printing Office
732 N. Capitol Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20401
Dear Mr. DiMario:
Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the recently
released
Report
to the Congress: Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a
Successful
Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library
Program. We are
responding to your request to submit written comments based on
the
oral
remarks delivered at last week's joint meeting between members of
the
Working
Group and the Advisors. Our comments today reflect the views of
the
members
of the American Association of Law Libraries, the American
Library
Association, the Association of Research Libraries and the
Special
Libraries
Association.
We are pleased that our associations, which represent more
than
75,000
professionals in pubic, academic and special libraries throughout
the
country, were included in an advisory capacity during the lengthy
study
process. We commend the Government Printing Office for carrying
out
this
legislatively-mandated study in a manner that considered the
views of
all
three branches of the government, the library community and the
private
sector. It is especially noteworthy that members of the Working
Group
consisted of representatives from key agencies, including the
National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA), as well as many
Congressional
staff. It is hoped that one outcome of this collaborative
approach will
be
improved understanding by all stakeholders of the serious issues
of
concern
to libraries and other users of government information as the
transistion to
a more electronic Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP)
proceeds.
The FDLP has existed for one hundred and thirty-nine years as
a very
successful partnership program between the federal government,
libraries and
the public. This partnership must become even stronger in the
future in
order that the move to a more electronic program succeeds in
reaching
its
goal: that is, the use of new technologies to expand the public's
access
to
government information. We are pleased with the draft report's
principles
for federal government information, including the public's right
to
know and
the government's responsibility to disseminate and provide broad
and
permanenet access to its information. The well-articulated goals
for an
electronic FDLP, as noted in the draft report, must be realized
to ensure
that these important principles are achieved.
It is especially gratifying that many of the comments and
concerns
addressed in our previous joint letter to you regarding the
Transition
Plan
were incorporated into the draft report. We do with to offer
some
additional
general comments on the draft study as there continue to be many
areas
of
serious concern and importance to our members.
TIME FRAME: We are pleased that the draft report
offers a
more realistic
and technologically feasible five to seven year time frame for
the
transition. The Transition Chronology proposed in the strategic
plan
better
reflects the nation's technological infrastructure; the ability
of agencies
to create and provide access to information electronically; and
the
capabilities of libraries and users to effectively utilize such
information.
We will urge members of the Congresssional authorizing and
appropriating
committees to support this more realistic time frame so that no
barriers
develop during the transitional years that would reduce the
public's
access
to government information.
VIABILITY OF PRINT: We are pleased that the draft
study
recognizes the
continued viability of a variety of formats, including print, to
meet user
needs. Format decisions should be based on usage, on the needs
of the
user
community, and also on an agency's own dissemination
requirements.
While
electronic information offers many advantages to paper, including
timeliness,
the ability to perform full-text searches and to manipulate data,
certain
types of materials will continue to be more efficiently created,
disseminated
and used in paper format.
Another problematic area regarding format decisions concerns
fee-based
products and services; namely, when an agency stops production of
a
title in
print and moves it into a fee-based online service. One example
of this
is
that depository libraries have in the past been able to select
the FBIS
and
JPRS reports in print formats but these are now available online
through paid
subscriptions to the new World News Connection service of the
National
Technical Information Service (NTIS). It is planned that by the
end of
this
year these important materials will be available only online
while the
printed and microfiche reports will be phased out. Valuable
materials
that
have traditionally been available to depositories will no longer
be
included
in the program since NTIS does not offer no-fee access to the
World
News
Connection for depository libraries.
REDUNDANCY AND DIVERSITY: We are pleased that the
draft study recognizes
the principles of redundancy and diversity as articulated in
NCLIS
Principle
#5: The Federal Government Should Ensure A Wide Diversity of
Sources
of
Access, Private as well as Governmental, to Public Information.
Redundancy--in access, in formats, and in preservation--is both a
necessity
and an advantage. It provides a safeguard in case of overloaded
systems,
natural or man-made disasters, and even government shutdowns.
It is the government's affirmative obligation to ensure
permanent
access
to the information that it produces. In the electronic
environment,
diverse
and multiple partners are needed to promote and ensure access and
preservation to government information long after its initial
creation
and
dissemination. At the same time, a diversity of other public,
private
and
not-for-profit sources is critical to ensuring that information
remains
available in useful and convenient ways.
CENTRALIZATION: We are pleased that the draft study
recognizes the need
for coordination and centralization to meet the goals of the
FDLP. The
program in a distributed electronic environment requires
coordination
to
bring all participants together on issues of: 1) standardization
and
guidelines to ensure ease of locating information and guarantees
of
long-term
access; 2) no-fee access to all government information, including
fee-based
products and services; and 3) usability. The complexities of
these
issues,
particularly when many agencies are creating their own web sites,
seems
to be
underestimated in the draft report. We commend GPO ACCESS as the
legislatively-mandated centralized point of entry to electronic
government
information and the GPO locator services that assists the public
in
finding
information across diverse government entities. Users must have
timely and
comprehensive finding aids to the growing vast universe of
electronic
government information, and centralized coordination is the most
efficient
means.
In addition to the above general comments on the draft study,
we
firmly
believe that the study's goal of ensuring broader public access
through
electronic means will not be achieved unless the following
concerns are
addressed. While details of the draft study and the strategic
plan
remain to
be worked out, these issues are critical to the transition's
success. We
hope also that the collaborative approach which GPO brought to
the
study
itself will be maintained so that all interested and involved
partners,
including our associations, may continue to participate in the
process.
MORE DATA NEEDED: We remain very concerned that
although some useful
information was gathered during the study process, neither the
draft
report,
the models developed as part of the task force reports, nor the
strategic
plan are based on substantive data regarding costs to and
capabilities
of the
government, libraries or the public to produce, access and use
predominately
electronic information. We believe that a technical scan is
necessary
and we
will urge Congress to approve funding for the Technical
Implementation
Assistance which the report proposes.
NO-FEE ACCESS: We strongly support the study's first
goal
statement which
ensures that the public has equitable, no-fee local access to
government
information through depository libraries. The draft study
addresses
this
issue by suggesting that reimbursement to agencies for fee-based
services
could come from the Superintendent of Documents. There are no
assurances,
however, that there will be continued adequate funding to support
the
transition plan. Consequently, we are concerned that government
information
for which agencies must recover cost, particularly fee-based
products
and
services, will become a new generation for fugitive information.
LONG TERM PERMANENT ACCESS AND PRESERVATION:
The draft report
acknowledges that issues relating to long-term access and
preservation
of
electronic government information require new relationships,
indeed
new
strategies, between all stakeholders: GPO, agencies, NARA and
participating
libraries. Yet the draft fails to identify what these strategies
may entail
and the responsiblities for each partner. Long term preservation
and
access
issues are critical to the success of the FDLP; thus it is
crucial that
additional information regarding these activities be provided.
In addition, the draft report includes the recommendation
that GPO
will
assume new responsibilities in the archival arena. Through many
years
of
maintaining preservation and archival programs and collections,
libraries
have learned that these efforts require significant investments
in
technological solutions (e.g. deacidification and digitization
pilots),
personnel, and facilities. To be successful in undertaking new
preservation
and archiving responsibilities, GPO will need to provide
additional
detail
regarding how such tasks will be accomplished. We suggest that a
comprehensive study be undertaken among all partners to guarantee
permanent
long term access and preservation. For example, it is not clear
how and
when
GPO would support the "periodic review and refreshing of data to
different
mediums."
The issues of long term permanent access and preservation are
central to
the transition to a more electronic program and thus we are
especially
concerned that the draft study offers no specifics, no data, no
costs and
no
assurances. We reaffirm that these critical issues are the
responsibility
of
the government and that they must be comprehensively addressed
before the
transition plan is implemented. The questions are very basic
ones:
first,
how do we assure that electronic information will be available
and
usable
next month, next year, or in twenty-five, fifty, or even a
hundred years
from
now; and second, who will be responsible for ensuring long-term
permanent
access. In shifting long-term access from depository libraries
to the
government, as the draft study suggests, we must be assured that
funding will
remain adequate so that the government can refresh and migrate
information.
Otherwise, our national historical records will disappear into a
black
hole
and the advantages of electronic information will be nullified.
COPYRIGHT-LIKE RESTRICTIONS: Principle 5 states that
Government
information created or complied at Government expense or by
Government
employees as part of their official duties, regardless of the
format in
which
it is published, is in the public domain. We strongly affirm
this
principle
and note that some agencies are imposing copyright-like
restrictions on
electronic information. Worrisome patterns are already being
proposed; for
example, in the case of an agency restricting the downloading of
information
or its electronic re-transmission. This is an egregious barrier
not only
to
the public's current and long term access to information but also
to
innovative and creative forces in the private sector to develop
enhanced
products and services. Further, regarding the proposal of the
National
Technical Information Service, libraries can neither restrict nor
control
users from placing electronic information on the Internet.
FEE-BASED PRODUCTS AND SERVICES: In roder to fulfill
the goals of an
enhanced FDLP program, it is vital that materials not currently
in the
program, such as those created by self-supporting agencies who
are by
law
required to recover their costs, be included. While the draft
report
proposes models though which these materials whould enter the
program, the
key question is, of course, who is going to pay. GPO suggests
that the
Superintendent of Documents would reimburse agencies for the cost
of
including these products and services in the program. However,
there
are no
guarantees that Congress would assure the necessary funding.
This issue addresses the troubling question of cost recovery
and
quasi-business corporations. Regarding the NTIS proposal for
example,
it is
very troubling that libraries would be asked to become watchdogs
to
ensure
that these electronic materials do not leak out into the public
domain.
We
are also concerned that these or similar restrictions could
potentially be
used by agencies for access to services for which users have paid
subscriptions. A strong affirmation on redistribution without
copyright-like
restrictions for agency cost-recovery programs is imperative.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROGRAM
LIBRARIES: We are concerned that
since all depository libraries will soon be required to have
Internet
access
and since, according to the plan, most government information
will be
available in electronic format, even the smallest program library
will by
default become a "regional" for electronic government
information.
Requiring
all libraries to fulfill the regional depository libraries'
statutory
responsibilities of access and service will place undue burdens
on
selectives. In order to prevent this occurrence, more
flexibility must be
built into the program that allows libraries to provide access to
electronic
information in a manner they can accommodate. We must all
acknowledge the
tremendous value of program libraries and it is important to
provide
incentives for their continued participation in the program.
CONCLUSION:
These comments on the draft study and the strategic plan
supplement
our
oral comments delivered at last week's joint Working Group and
Advisors
meeting. We will submit additional comments on the draft study
and
particularly on some of the specific Task Force Reports within
the next
few
weeks. In particular, we are troubled that some proposed
alternative
models
in several of the Task Force Reports may not be wholly in accord
with
the
study's affirmed principles and goals and thus are very
problematic to
our
members.
We are especially pleased to see the new draft language of
the
definitions in Chapter 19, Title 44 that acknowledge that
electronic
information is explicitly defined in the law as being a key
component of
the
FDLP. It is crucial that Chapter 19 be amended to reflect these
changes
in
definitions and the broader scope of the FDLP to assure that the
goals
for a
more electronic program are achieved.
We believe that funding for the technology grants will
provide seed
money
for small selective libraries which otherwise would be unable to
provide
access to electronic products and services to members of their
local
communities. One-time technology grants are a step in the right
direction
although they may not be sufficient since technology itself
changes so
rapidly as do user needs. To strengthen the justification for
these
technology grants, we suggest that GPO determine the number of
libraries that
would be unable to provide access to the expanding array of
electronic
FDLP
materials without these start-up grants.
We would like to make the following recommendations: 1) that
the
substantial progress and inter-agency dialog achieved throughout
the
past
year continue; 2) that GPO and agencies work together to
determine
consistency regarding format and standards; and 3) that the
Working
Group
model continue with Information Resource Management
representatives from GPO,
the Library of Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and
the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, as well as the
library
community and users.
We remain concerned that the draft study lacks clear
incentives for
agencies to participate in the program, particularly when their
budgets
are
being cut. We also firmly believe that means of oversight and
compliance
must be provided in a meaningful and effective way. Our
associations,
representing the broader library community, are willing to work
with
you to
suplement and strengthen the study by offering additional
information
in the
following areas: the capabilities of and impact on libraries and
users;
the
role and responsibilities of regional and selective depository
libraries;
and
the troublesome questions of oversight and compliance. Thank you
very much
for this opportunity to comment on the draft report.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Oakley
Washington Affairs Representative
American Association of Law Libraries
Carol C. Henderson
Executive Director-Washington Office
American Library Association
Prudence S. Adler
Assistant Executive Directory
Association of Research Libraries
David R. Bender
Executive Director
Special Libraries Association
cc: Members, House and Senate Legislative Appropriations
Subcommittees Chair
and Ranking Minority Member, House and Senate Authorizing
Committees Ms. Linda
Kemp, Staff Director, Joint Committee on Printing
May 24, 1996
Michael F. DiMario
Public Printer
U.S. Government Printing Office
732 N. Capitol Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20401
Dear Mr. DiMario:
We appreciate this opportunity to offer some final comments
on the
Report
to the Congress: Study to Identify Measures for a Successful
Transition
to a
More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program. On
behalf of
the
American Association of Law Libraries, the American Library
Association, the
Association of Research Libraries and the Special Libraries
Association,
we
again thank you for including us as advisors to this very
important
study.
Our earlier letters to you on the March draft report to
Congress and
on
The Electronic Federal Depository Library Program: Transition
Plan, FY 1996-FY
1998 issued in December, have already articulated many of our
concerns.
These are very important issues, and include bibliographic
control, long
term
access, preservation and authenticity, to name but a few. We
firmly
believe
that these issues must be decisively addressed before the
transition to a
predominately electronic program proceeds any further.
In addition, we believe that Task 1A, the "Technical analysis
by a
Federally-funded research and development center (FFRDC)" was
crucial
to
determining the most cost efffective way to implement the more
electronic
program. We reiterate our belief that the Technical
Implementation
Assistance Study (Executive Summary, Appendix A) must be carried
out
to
provide necessary analytical data on technological issues
including
hardware,
software, and communications options. The surveys of depository
libraries
and agencies will assist GPO in making informed decisions on how
the
transition can reasonably be achieved.
We have some additional comments regarding the technological
infrastructure. Planning for technological change is never easy,
but the
enormous technological change in the underlying information
infrastructure
makes the job even more difficult. There are few certainties
about what
the
infrastructure will look like next year, much less five to ten
years from
now. For instance, five years ago no one predicted the growth
and
range of
use of the Internet that has occurred since that time. (We refer
you to
the
recent report of the Computer Science and Telecommunications
Board
of the
National Research Council, titled The Unpredictable
Certainty.)
We do know that, rapid as the growth has been, the evolution
of a
robust
widespread and high-speed national infrastructure will be slower
than
what
seems to be anticipated in the strategic plan. Capital
investments must
be
made in the underlying technology, marketable applications need
to be
developed to stimulate private investments, and users must invest
in
technology and training at their end, in order to take advantage
of new
services. This takes time.
We also know that the basic architecture of the future
infrastructure
is
still undetermined, and may take some time to settle down. Will
highly
centralized services and resources be most economic and
effective, or
will
technology favor distributed resources? Will application
software
reside in
the net or will it be in the users' computers? How will the
economics of
the
high quality printing evolve? The answers to all of the
questions may
well
change over time as new innovations reach the market, as new
discoveries are
made in the laboratories, and as users such as libraries,
publishers, and
government agencies find new ways to use information technology.
Thus, the following two points are critical.
First, the transition plan should be flexible and evolving
and not be
overly dependent on particular technological characteristics and
projections.
In brief, it should not put all of its eggs in one technological
basket and
not be wedded to rigid timetables.
Second, the transition should incorporate a formal and
continuing
process
of technlogy scanning and evaluation that moves forward as the
project
moves
forward. We have recommended all along that the GPO should be
allowed to
conduct such technology evaluations. Not only is it a critical
need, it is
an on-going one.
In addition to these comments, we are attaching responses to
several
of
the task reports included in the study. As advisors, we rely on
our
membership for input on issues of such critical cocern to the
future of
the
Federal Depository Library Program. These comments have been
drafted and
discussed by highly-skilled members of our four associations who,
as
depository librarians, have first-hand knowledge of the impact of
these
important issues on their institutions and their users. The task
force
reports contain valuable comments and suggestions that we hope
will
be taken
into consideration as we move together towards a more electronic
program.
Lastly, we join you in affirming the Principles For Federal
Government
Information and the Mission and Goals For the Federal Depository
Library
Program as articulated in the draft report to Congress (Sections
III and
IV).
The Federal Depository Library Program has proven to be a highly
successful
partnership for 139 years between the government and libraries
located
throughout our nation in almost every Congressional district.
The
benefits
of the pprogram contribute directly to the knowledge of citizens
everywhere
about the activities of their government, and to the economic
well-being
of
our nation.
We are pleased to have participated as advisors throughout
the
lengthy
study process. We hope that the dialogue among the various
partner
agencies
and the depository community will continue as plans are
implemented
for the
shift to a more electronic FDLP. Thank you very much for
considering
our
concerns during the study process. Please do not hesitate to
contact
any one
of us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Oakley
Washington Affairs Representative
American Association of Law Libraries
Carol C. Henderson
Executive Director-Washington Office
American Library Association
Prudence S. Adler
Assistant Executive Director
Association of Research Libraries
David R. Bender
Executive Director
Special Libraries Association
cc: Members, House and Senate Legislative Appropriations
Subcommittee Chair
and Ranking Minority Member, House and Senate Authorizing
Committees
Ms. Linda Kemp, Staff Director, Joint Committee on Printing
Enclosures
TASK 5: Evaluation of Incentives for Publishing Agencies to
Migrate From Print Products to Electronic Format. (Attachment
D-4)
ABSTRACT: The full participation by publishing agencies
is essential to the success of any government information
dissemination
program, yet it is important to recognize that agencies have many
responsibilities and many pressures on limited budgets. The only
positive incentive for agencies to convert depository materials
to electronic formats will be a system which is as automatic and
cost effective for them as the traditional program. Since
provision
of information to depository libraries is not a major part of
agency missions, the incentives to adopt electronic publishing
must come from a broader vision of the value of an informed
citizenry;
data which identifies current progress and barriers; and
directives
to agencies which make the government commitment to information
access very clear. In the electronic environment there is a need
for central coordination of public access to government
information.
The existence of a program which would provide leadership in
standards,
cataloging, and longterm access could in itself be an incentive
for agencies to use electronic publishing as a costeffective way
of carrying out missions while assuring public access to
information.
The issues raised in Task 5 are very important ones, since
without
full participation by publishing agencies no government
information
dissemination program can be completely successful. Depository
libraries have tried to find ways to develop communication
channels
with as many agencies as possible. Since the depositories serve
users of agency information who may not be recognized by the
agencies
as their primary users, depository librarians are in a position
to communicate user needs, suggest improvements in agency
products
and software, and to recommend agency publications and electronic
resources to potential users and buyers.
The legislative requirements for the GPO study ask for a study
which "surveys current and future dissemination plans of
executive branch agencies." Without the data which would
have been gathered by the technical analysis of an FFRDC (Task
1), it is not possible to identify with much accuracy the
progress
which is being made by agencies or the barriers which might lead
to the identification of incentives. The mention in the Strategic
Plan that a survey will be part of the Technical Implementation
Assistance is very positive and this survey will be useful in
expanding on the incentives identified in Task 5.
The task assumes that agencies should be migrating from print
to electronic formats. Many agencies are making major strides
in that direction. On the other hand, there are some publications
which agencies will decide are most useful to their primary
clientele
in paper format. In such cases, it will be important to weigh
both the costs of reproduction and distribution in paper format
or the cost of electronic conversion, and the usefulness of the
final product. If the agency has no need of its own to provide
an electronic version of a particular publication to meet its
mission, another entity such as GPO will need to absorb the costs
of electronic conversion if that format is to be provided to
depositories.
The Task 5 report makes a powerful point in explaining why the
Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) works so smoothly for
agencies in the traditional formats. The GPO reproduces the
necessary
extra copies without any effort on the part of the agencies, and
Congressional appropriations pay the costs of reproduction and
distribution. The publications are made available across the
country
in a way that is simple and costeffective. The only positive
incentive
for agencies to convert to electronic formats will be a system
which is equally as automatic and costeffective for them. An
additional
incentive would be added if services were offered to agencies
which would assist them in meeting their primary missions in more
effective ways.
Incentive A
Incentive A in the Task 5 report is based on the assumption that
agencies would still be submitting publications for printing,
and that GPO would then be making decisions about formats for
the FDLP. This provides the opportunity for electronic conversion
of publications, which could serve information needs of FDLP
users
and of the agencies themselves. But it may not provide a major
incentive for agencies to move away from print altogether, unless
the services offered by GPO can provide efficiencies beyond what
the agencies can do in other ways.
Incentive B
Incentive B applies to information products which agencies do
provide electronically and maintain themselves, and suggests ways
to assure that the information is included in the FDLP. It
addresses
to some extent the need for a FDLP even when information is
available
somewhere on the Web. FDLP partners assist users in identifying
appropriate and authoritative information, and provide sites for
access by users who have no direct Web connections. With these
benefits, and the added proposal that the GPO would assist in
transferring electronic information as required by NARA, it could
provide incentives for agency cooperation with the FDLP, for
information
already in electronic format. It is less clear whether these
advantages
would be enough to act as incentives to migrate additional
information
from print.
Issues
The issues identified in the Task 5 report are important ones
which deserve additional prominence as the study progresses. The
need for standardization, at least for a consensus on a group
of acceptable formats and software, is expressed by both agencies
and users. This process should provide a mechanism to move toward
acceptance of standards, not to be imposed by GPO but to be
agreed
upon by all branches of government. GPO's service could be to
evaluate alternatives and assist with implementation.
Task 5 concludes that even in the electronic environment there
is a need for a central focus for coordinating public access to
government information. If the government is to carry out its
commitment to public access to its information, a central
coordinating
authority will be the most costeffective way to assure that.
The problem with trying to use the FDLP as an incentive to move
agencies to electronic publishing is that agencies have many
responsibilities
and many pressures on limited budgets. The provision of
information
to libraries is not the primary mission for most agencies, and
their incentives to adopt electronic publishing must come from
a broader vision of what will serve agency missions and also
prove
costeffective. If elements of the FDLP and services offered by
the GPO can be proven to assist agencies in these ways,
participation
in the program can provide a viable incentive for migration to
electronic information dissemination.
TASK 6: Evaluation of current laws governing the FDLP and
recommendation
of any legislative changes necessary for a successful transition
to a more electronic program. (Attachment D-5)
ABSTRACT: The draft changes to Chapter 19, Title 44, aim
to facilitate the transition to a more electronic program.
Chapter
19 should be amended to recognize the electronic focus of the
program and to ensure that the growing array of electronic
products
and services published by all three branches of government are
included in the program. The entire lifecycle of informationfrom
its creation to its permanent access and preservationand agency
compliance are additional issues that need to be taken into
consideration
as legislative changes are considered by Congress.
Section 1. Scope of Information in the FDLP
The draft language definitions of "Government
information,"
"Government information product," and
"Government
electronic information service" (1a) indicate that
information
produced in a variety of electronic formats, including both
tangible
products and online services, are as much within the scope of
the program as materials produced in print formats. The Task 6
draft also suggests language that would bring into the program
materials that have in the past been excluded. These include
cooperative
publications that must be sold by agencies in order to be
selfsustaining
(1b); feebased electronic services (1c); and products not
produced
or procured by GPO (1e).
In the current budget environment, there is concern that agencies
may impose copyright like restrictions on government information
products, both in print and electronic formats. Congress needs
to address this issue as it conflicts with Principle 5,
"Government
Information Created or Compiled by Government Employees or at
Government Expense Should Remain in the Public Domain." A
stated goal of the GPO study was to find ways of using technology
to improve and enhance the public's access to information. To
be successful, the FDLP is dependent on Congress to provide
sufficient
funding, either directly to agencies or through the
Superintendent
of Documents, to make these materials available to the public
at no cost.
As the number of agency electronic information products grow,
the role of the GPO in providing users with bibliographic and
longterm access becomes even more critical. A mechanism whereby
the Superintendent of Documents is able to access electronic
source
data files from agencies is vital to ensuring that such data
becomes
a part of the program, is easily identifiable to the public, and
is available for the longterm.
Section 2. Permanent Public Access to Government
Information.
The proposed programmatic changes shift responsibility for
permanent
public access from participating depository libraries to the
government.
In view of the fact that agencies are today developing web sites
with neither standards nor requirements for longterm access, a
significant loss of valuable information is already occurring.
The proliferation of agency web sites will exacerbate this loss
unless legislative changes clearly define roles and
responsibilities
of all participants. Agencies should comply not only with making
information available to the public, for example through an
agency
web site, but also with assuring that the files are transferred
for permanent access to either the GPO or another archival
facility.
Legislative changes should consider the entire lifecycle of
electronic
information.
The draft language suggests that coordination by the
Superintendent
of Documents may accomplish the goal of permanent public access.
Other than proposing use of GPO's electronic storage facility,
however, the draft language lacks specifics as to which entities
are to be ultimately responsible for permanent public access.
More precise language would be useful. In addition, sufficient
incentives, including funding, are necessary to entice program
libraries to participate in a distributed system for permanent
longterm access.
Finally, more precise recommendations are needed to address the
preservation of data, migration of formats as necessary,
distributed
storage of data and equipment, and longterm public access
concerns.
Until these issues are addressed and resolved, any transition
to an electronic depository program is incomplete and will result
in a significant loss of access to government information by the
public.
Section 3. Requirements for Depository Libraries.
Depository libraries in the past have fulfilled the requirement
for providing public access and service with outstanding
commitment.
The transition to a predominately electronic program, however,
imposes new and significant responsibilities and costs. It is
questionable that the premise that each depository library, even
small selectives, would be able to provide public access and
service
to all materials to which the locator service links. Assuredly,
a program library must meet and probably exceed the proposed
minimum
technical guidelines in order to provide adequate public access.
However, a program library should have the flexibility to provide
expertise and service depending on their own user community needs
and collection strengths. The draft language suggested to expand
44 U.S.C. 1909 is vague and not sufficiently specific to provide
guidance for designation of program libraries.
Section 4. Notification.
It is important that the draft language notification requires
that an agency inform the Superintendent of Documents when an
information product or service is initiated, substantially
modified,
or terminated. This provision parallels the notification
requirement
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and is necessary in order
for GPO to provide bibliographic access and to coordinate
permanent
access to agency electronic information services. The
notification
requirement will enable GPO to provide full and timely
bibliographic
access to these products and services so that the public can
derive
the maximum benefits from the value of the information.
Section 5. Compliance Issues.
In order to meet the stated principles and goals of enhancing
the public's access to information through the use of electronic
products and services, legislative language is needed to ensure
agency compliance in all three branches of government. Agencies
must have adequate and positive incentives for participation in
the program but there must also be penalties for noncompliance.
Section 6. Cataloging and Locator Services.
GPO's coordinating role of providing users with a catalog of
Government
information products and services, and with the locator service
should continue. The success of these endeavors is directly
related
to whether or not agencies comply with the notification
requirement.
The public must be assured that the GPO cataloging and locator
services are comprehensive and timely since these services will
be a primary point of access to all electronic government
information.
Section 7. Redescribing the Program to Reflect a Changing
Environment.
The library community has long recommended that the FDLP program
be renamed to become more meaningful to the general public. The
suggested new language, "The Federal Information
Dissemination
and Access Program," was in fact introduced during the
Chicago
Conference on government information and more recently supported
by the library associations in the Enhanced Library Access
and Dissemination of Federal Government Information: A Framework
for Future Discussion.
TASK 7: Survey Federal Agencies to Identify CDROM Titles Not
Currently Included in the Federal Depository Library Program.
(Attachment D-6)
ABSTRACT: Task Group 7 surveyed government agencies
regarding
their inclusion of CDROM products into the FDLP. Possible
solutions
to the problem of agencies' bypassing the FDLP with important
CDROM titles are: improved communication with agencies; more
precise
language in Title 44 to recognize that electronic information
falls within the scope of the program; and better cooperation
between the agencies and the FDLP to ensure that software
licenses
are negotiated for FDLP libraries. It is very alarming to learn
from the survey that over half of agency CDROM titles fall
outside
of the FDLP.
Task 7 addresses the need for empirical data regarding agency
participation in the FDLP. It surveyed federal agencies to
determine
reasons for not including CDROM titles in the program. Responses
to the survey indicate that the three most important reasons for
nonparticipation in the FDLP were agencies' lack of understanding
of the requirements of Title 44 as they apply to CDROMS;
restrictions
imposed on software licenses negotiated by agencies for their
CDROM products; and lack of communication between GPO and the
agencies concerning inclusion of their products in the program.
Unfortunately, none of the agencies who responded to the survey
gave any specific reasons for participating or not participating
in the FDLP. The survey concluded that 55.6% of agency CDROM
titles
were identified by agencies as not included in the program. This
means that almost half of the CDROM titles are not readily
available
to the public at no fee at their depository library. Responses
to the survey were also incomplete, making it difficult to make
predictive and prescriptive statements based solely on this data.
Because of this situation, the Task Group also used data obtained
from ACSIS and compared it to the survey results to see if GPO
has distributed any titles which agencies indicated were not
included
in the program.
Given the responses to the survey, better communication with the
agencies regarding their responsibilities for making their CDROM
products available to the FDLP is of paramount importance.
Although
the study recognizes that the language in Title 44 includes CDROM
products, the definitions in sections 1901 and 1902 should be
strengthened in order that agencies share this recognition.
Software
licensing is another area which should be addressed by both the
agencies and by GPO. As Task Group 7 points out in its report,
"GPO can (and has) contracted for software licenses for
sales
and depository copies when agency licenses do not cover GPO
dissemination."
Fostering better communication between GPO and the agencies
hinges
on several assumptions, including the acceptance and recognition
of the need for a central coordinating authority such as the FDLP
to ensure dissemination of federal information products and
services
to the public through libraries. Furthermore, legislative changes
to Title 44 would better enable agencies to include their CDROM
products in the FDLP. Whereas the numerical data gained from the
survey is instructive, even more interesting is the casual
attitude
taken by the respondents, both in some agencies' failure to
respond
to the survey and in the inaccuracy of some of the data provided.
As the Task Group concludes, "a program of improved
communication
or outreach to agencies may be necessary to ameliorate this
situation."
As with other aspects of the study, implementing this conclusion
is predicated on the assumption that adequate funding is provided
to the program.
The issues raised by this task group become even more important
as individuals and organizations are increasingly turning to
CDROMs
as a permanent solution to the problem of access to government
information after its usefulness in the online environment or
on the web has decreased.
TASK 8A: Evaluate the costs and benefits involved in
converting
Congressional bills and resolutions to electronic formats for
distribution through the Federal Depository Library Program.
(Attachment D-7)
ABSTRACT: Alternative B eliminates microfiche distribution
of Congressional bills and resolutions in favor of a monthly
cumulative
CDROM containing the PDF files. The option of selecting these
important materials on CDROM would allow the public to access
them in a costeffective and userfriendly manner. The final annual
cumulative version would provide libraries with assured access
to older materials that might be withdrawn from the GPO server.
Depository libraries would also have timely access to these
important
materials in PDF files through GPO ACCESS. It is important that
Congressional bills and resolutions be accessible through mirror
sites in order to provide the depository library community with
a sense of security that online access to recent Congressional
bills and resolutions would be available at all times.
The distribution of Congressional bills through the Federal
Depository
Library Program (FDLP) began with paper distribution. At the
beginning
of the 97th Congress in 1981, the distribution format for
Congressional
bills changed from paper to microfiche. Although there were
concerns
expressed about the suitability of microfiche for this important
category of depository library materials, the switch to
microfiche
distribution enabled many libraries to more easily maintain
collections
of Congressional bills. A paper finding aid, arranged by category
and then by bill number, provided a finding tool for locating
the text of Congressional bills within the microfiche collection.
Today, the availability of online services and CDROM technology
provides the opportunity to explore other avenues for
dissemination
of Congressional materials, including Congressional bills. These
options have been explored in the report on Task 8A which had
as its mission to, "Evaluate the costs and benefits involved
in converting Congressional bills and resolutions to electronic
formats for distribution through the Federal Depository Library
Program."
The task force report states that Congressional bills on
microfiche
are selected by 859 depository libraries at a cost of
approximately
$94,940.00 per Congressional session. 544 depository libraries
select the electronic version of bills available through GPO
Access.
Although 544 libraries officially select Congressional bills in
electronic format, it is safe to assume that some depository
libraries
are making use of Gateway Libraries, or directly accessing the
GPO World Wide Web site. It should be noted that it is currently
possible to select both microfiche and electronic Congressional
bills.
Alternative A: Eliminate all microfiche distribution to
depository
libraries and make Congressional bills and resolutions available
online through the WAIS server. The PDF files for the bills could
also be mounted for FTP download.
Providing online access to Congressional bills would enable those
libraries that are technologically capable to benefit from access
to current Congressional bills. Many depository libraries are
fully equipped to access the GPO WAIS server via the World Wide
Web and/or telnet; however, a large percentage of depository
libraries
are not technically capable of doing so. All depository libraries
should be able to access this important source of public
information.
While the microfiche may be difficult to read and is not arranged
strictly in numerical order, it is useable and patrons can access
the materials they may need. While technologicallycapable
libraries
may provide electronic access to current Congressional bills
through
GPO Access, how difficult will it be for a library to provide
access to the older materials that will need to be withdrawn from
the server because of space considerations? Will this interface
be transparent for the user?
As noted in the disadvantages to this alternative, the Task Force
stated that, "If depository access to historical files is
to be ensured, a less costly and longer term distribution method
will be needed to supplement online access to the bills. This
may mean production of a CDROM or mounting of the PDF and ASCII
files for FTP downloading after a predetermined period of
time."
Providing access to Congressional bills solely in an online
environment
will negatively affect the ability of many depository users to
access both the current files of Congressional bills as well as
retrospective files that may be housed at separate locations.
Alternative B: Eliminate microfiche distribution of the
Congressional
bills and resolutions in favor of a monthly cumulative CDROM
containing
the PDF files. Depository libraries would still be able to access
the online service.
This alternative provides an economic and userfriendly approach
to distributing Congressional bills and resolutions. It is
estimated
in the draft report that GPO would save approximately $34,032.00
if this approach to dissemination of Congressional bills were
adopted. While saving costs, this approach would also provide
a useful product with the ability to search and download the text
of Congressional bills. At this time, libraries need to use other
finding aids, often commercially produced, to determine the
location
of bills they need. The 1995 Biennial Survey indicates that 83.1%
of all depository libraries have CDROM capability. This
percentage
makes it reasonable to expect that depository libraries would
select a CDROM product if it were available. A monthly cumulative
CDROM will eliminate the filing and storage problems associated
with the microfiche bills. In addition, if kept on a regular
schedule,
a monthly CDROM product would be more uptodate than the current
microfiche distribution, which has been subject to contractor
delays. As Internet technology becomes more stable, and as
depository
libraries meet minimum technology requirements for participation
in the FDLP, it may become unnecessary to produce a monthly
update
and an annual CDROM may suffice.
TASK 8B: Evaluate the costs and benefits involved in
converting
Congressional Documents and Reports to electronic format for
distribution
through the Federal Depository Library Program, even though
currently
a substantial amount of the source data is not available to GPO
in machine readable form. (Attachment D8)
ABSTRACT: The Congressional documents and reports have
provided a significant, ongoing, historical record of the work
of Congress. Both the bound paper version and the individual slip
versions of this material has been distributed through the
Federal
Depository Library Program (FDLP). A combination of Alternatives
A and C would provide comprehensive access to this valuable
information.
Depository libraries would have timely access to most of the
recent
documents and reports through GPO ACCESS; older materials would
be accessible either through CDROM or the bound paper Serial Set.
For the electronic product to be useful though, Congress needs
to determine what it considers the authoritative version to be.
Task 8B is to evaluate the costs and benefits associated in
converting
Congressional Documents and Reports to electronic format for
distribution
through the Federal Depository Library Program. This effort must
be examined in conjunction with the production of the U.S.
Congressional
Serial Set. It is important to keep in mind that these are two
distinct series. The individual slip documents and reports are
produced first; the bound Serial Set volumes are produced much
later.
The U.S. Congressional Serial Set comprises a significant portion
of the historical record of the work of Congress. The legal basis
for compilation, binding, numbering and distribution of the paper
bound Serial Set is contained in 44 USC sections 701, 719 and
738. The Serial Set currently includes Senate and House
documents,
congressional committee reports, presidential and other executive
publications, treaty materials, and selected reports of
nongovernmental
organizations.
At present, every depository library is eligible to receive both
the slip publications and the bound Serial Set in either paper
and/or microfiche format. For the 101st Congress, 1st session,
the cost to GPO for producing and distributing the Serial Set
was $1,567,000. This figure covers 463 libraries receiving the
Serial Set in paper and 755 libraries receiving microfiche.
The conversion of documents and reports to electronic format is
problematic at present. While a high percentage of the reports
are available in machine readable format, only 20% of the
documents
are received from Congress in this format. In order to be put
online, GPO has to scan the materials to convert to a machine
readable form. Unfortunately, this does not always work resulting
in a nonsearchable image file only. In order for this process
to be effective, GPO will need to receive all reports and
documents
in machine readable format at the start. In addition, some
documents
are too graphicintensive to ever be converted to electronic
format.
With this in mind, the Working Group has proposed three
dissemination
alternatives in Task 8B. All three alternatives continue the
production
of a bound paper Serial Set, although alternatives B and C only
allow regional depository libraries to receive copies. The Serial
Set is a very important compilation and a key historical record
to providing an ongoing collection of the publications of the
U.S. Congress.
Alternative A: This option provides regional depository libraries
with the bound Serial Set and the slip Documents and Reports
through
online access as well as in a CDROM version. Selective
depositories
could choose online access to the slips in lieu of either paper
or microfiche. Selective depositories would also be able to
select
either the bound Serial Set or the Documents and Reports CDROM.
Alternative B: Alternative B provides the bound paper Serial Set
only to regional depository libraries. Selective depository
libraries
would have the ability to select the Documents and Reports CDROM,
which would be issued quarterly, cumulating for the session. All
libraries would have the option of accessing the reports and
documents
online from GPO Access.
Alternative C: This option would supplement Alternative B by
providing
the option of distributing paper copies to depository libraries
of any Documents and Reports too graphically intensive to
practically
convert to electronic format.
The value of this collection of Congressional materials is
considerable.
The Working Group may wish to consider a combination of A and
C to provide optimum public access. All depository libraries that
perceive a need for the paper bound Serial Set should be able
to continue to receive it. The individual slip documents and
reports,
except for those too graphicintensive, would be available online
until the quarterly Documents and Reports CDROM is distributed
to all libraries. Whichever alternative is chosen to provide the
slip documents and reports through the FDLP, there is one issue
that Congress still needs to addresswhat is considered the
authoritative
version of the reports and documents? Will an online version be
considered the authoritative version? Will the CDROM version?
In conjunction with this issue is the need to guarantee the
authenticity
of the electronic version.
TASK 8C: Determine the costs and the impact on public access
to the Department of Energy (DOE) technical reports through the
FDLP as the Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)
moves forward with its efforts to convert these reports from
microfiche
to electronic format. (Attachment D9)
ABSTRACT: The Department of Energy's Office of Scientific
and Technical Information (DOE/OSTI) is switching from microfiche
production to a wholly electronic method of dissemination. The
production of a fiche format is expected to end after FY 1996.
At that time DOE/OSTI will be entirely electronic. The Department
of Energy is committed to providing access to these valuable
materials
through the FDLP. Alternatives A and B propose making DOE/OSTI
reports available through their Web site which would provide very
timely access although because of the large number of image
files,
downloading would be very slow. Alternative C proposes access
through CDROMs which would not be as timely and would require
comprehensive cumulative keyword indexing. Depository libraries,
particularly Regionals, should have access to both formats with
reliance on the Internet for the most recent reports, and on the
CDROM for older materials.
DOE/OSTI materials have caused many libraries, especially
regionals,
space problems due to the large number of microfiche sent each
year. During FY 1995 17,117 unique reports were shipped out to
those depository libraries that selected them. In discussions
over the past few years depository libraries have tried to find
ways to ease the burden of storing all of these fiche. Some
suggestions
have included having only a few libraries receive these materials
and furnish copies to the rest of the system and another area
that has been discussed, especially in Regional meetings, is to
have fiche on demand, i.e., only provide fiche titles upon
request
from individual libraries. It was assumed that this would be less
costly than providing large number of libraries with all of the
titles. Having this material on demand electronically would solve
all of the space problems and potentially make the reports more
timely.
At the moment GPO and DOE/OSTI have a shared agreement that GPO
pays only for the distribution costs for DOE reports. DOE pays
for producing the fiche and for the depository copies. They also
agree to fulfill missing publications claims and provide
abstracts
and indexing services for the reports (GPO does not catalog these
publications or list them in the Monthly Catalog). The DOE/OSTI
has been very cooperative in meeting depository library needs
and has been a responsible agency in terms of participation in
the program to provide DOE information to the widest number of
users possible. The task force report states on page 2 of
Attachment
D9 that DOE/OSTI is committed to providing access to DOE reports
free of charge to depository libraries regardless of any policy
decision they make concerning general public access. This is a
most commendable public service position for the DOE to take and
the Depository community appreciates their efforts on our behalf
to ensure that we are included as a part of their information
process.
This case study gives three dissemination alternatives. The first
two, alternatives A and B, are virtually the same except for who
pays for the costs. In these two scenarios DOE/OSTI allows
depository
access to the reports Web site. No fiche, paper copy, or CDROM
would be available through the Federal Depository Library Program
(FDLP). Cost savings would accrue to both agencies. Additional
libraries would be able to serve the public with electronic
access
to this DOE Web site. The scenario further states that justintime
access is provided instead of justincase access. In alternative
A DOE/OSTI pays for the computer resources, user support, and
depository library usage. In Alternative B incremental costs for
FDLP usage would be paid for by GPO from their Salaries and
Expenses
appropriation. In both cases the study states that one
disadvantage
that users who access the Web site through a modem would have
is trouble downloading because of the large size of the image
filesa problem that Internet users would not have to the same
degree although it too can be very slow. Also in both cases each
agency might find increased costs due to unlimited usage.
The advantage to the FDLP is ready access to reports on a
potentially
more timely basis. Libraries would not have to provide long term
storage for this material and the library would only obtain the
titles that their patrons actually needed. The disadvantages
would
be the same as raised in other areas concerning online electronic
material, i.e., increased costs to library for hardware, problems
of downloading big files, abilities of library and patrons to
use electronic information, and concerns over long term archiving
and public access issues (which are not addressed in this case
study). Also Internet access may require local software, i.e.,
Adobe Acrobat or something similar, to view documents and the
depository libraries may also have to distribute copies of such
software to users to take with them to read the material.
In Alternative C DOE/OSTI reports would be made available to the
FDLP only on CDROMs and not online through the DOE Web site.
These
CDs would be packed with DOE reports in random order (DOE/OSTI
estimates approximately 125 title per CD). GPO would premaster
the CDROMs from DOE image files. A key benefit of this alterative
is that depository libraries are better able to handle CDROMs
than Internet sources (the 1995 Biennial Survey shows 83% of FDLP
have stand-alone workstation with CDROM). Also CDROM access
means
that there is no reliance or strain on the DOE Web site (DOE
experiences
no additional loads on their computer resources) and extended
access is provided all across the country at FDLPs. Downloading
large image files would be easier on libraries using CDROMs than
through a modem. The stated disadvantages are that CDROM access
would not be timely, additional expenses would be incurred by
GPO in creating and maintaining indexes to each CD, and those
FDLPs that do not select the DOE CD would still have to rely on
those that did. Also GPO would probably have to consider
comprehensive
cumulative keyword type indexing to compete with the quality of
Internet access.
Another consideration not addressed is that creation of DOE
reports
on CDROM would call for some software package to access and use
the files on CD. Such a software system should be user friendly
and place no additional burdens on depository staff and hardware,
nor impose any copyrightlike restrictions. Also the library may
have to provide copies of the software to their users in order
to make viewing possible at home.
Another possible scenario not proposed in the draft report is
that DOE/OSTI and GPO cooperate to extend access to depositories
in both formats, especially to Regionals. This would give timely
and current access to DOE reports through the Internet and would
allow Regionals or some other selected group to select and house
a less timely CDROM version for storage. This, of course, would
be more expensive to the agency and/or GPO but would offer some
choices to depositories, and make downloading of big files easier
and faster. Perhaps some costs could be saved by offering
Internet
for current materials and CDROM access for older material.
Finally the case study leaves three issues not addressed. The
first and foremost concern is the one that seems to bother
depository
librarians the most: that is there is no mechanism or policy to
ensure extended, long term public access to a agency Web site
or that the data will be maintained on any WWW site. If this
problem
were resolved and the FDLP was assured that this type of access
would be guaranteed then the major arguments against Internet
access could be laid to rest and libraries could get on with
solving
the hardware and access burdens that such electronic access
causes
them. Another concern is that Web sites are intended to serve
the agency's major constituency, and providing public access
through
the FDLP places additional burdens on the agency's equipment,
staff, and resources. If this burden is too great or has not been
given a great deal of study by the agency, it could lead to a
change of heart by the agency and result in restricted access
or the imposition of user fees, etc. Last but not least, the
study
points out that agencies must understand that access through the
FDLP means that their services should be designed for multiple
simultaneous users from the same library without limitations such
as singleuser passwords.
TASK 8D: Identify issues that must be addressed when an
agency
no longer makes electronic information dissemination products
and services available at its Web site, and the site contains
information that needs to remain available to the public through
the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) and/or transferred
to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
(Attachment D10)
ABSTRACT: Task Group 8D recognizes that the Office of
Technology
Assessment (OTA) exemplifies the case study of an agency no
longer
maintaining its Web site (in this case due to the agency's
demise);
furthermore, in this particular situation, the Web site includes
reports that have not been formally published. The task report
affirms that agency Web sites, which may contain information not
available in any other format, "...are in essence forms of
publication and therefore may be Federal records as defined by
44 U.S.C. 3301."
The Task 8D report states that GPO is primarily interested in
providing continued shortterm access (5 years minimum) for much
of the information on agency Web sites, while NARA focuses
narrowly
on that portion of the information which has historic value, with
the goal of assuring preservation of that information. This is
an oversimplification of the goals of the FDLP, since the
Regional
depository plan was developed primarily to guarantee permanent
retention and access to the information distributed through the
FDLP. Since the Task Force Report emphasizes shifting the
responsibility
for permanently maintaining and providing access to government
information from depository libraries to the federal government,
there is concern that: 1) some federal government information
may "fall through the cracks" and eventually disappear,
perhaps, for example, because it has not been saved in the GPO
electronic storage facility, it has been lost in the transfer
of data from one site to another, or it does not meet NARA's
criteria
for historic value; and 2) that there will continue to be
adequate
bibliographic control of this information for both retrieval and
inventory purposes. Task 8D repeatedly addresses these important
issues.
The report suggests two dissemination alternatives for GPO
regarding
OTA electronic files, with the understanding that: 1) OTA has
already made arrangements to mount information from OTA Online
on GPO's Web site; and 2) OTA also has a contract to scan all
the texts of their reports dating from 1972 and convert to
Acrobat
PDF format; these files will be packaged along with much of the
information available via OTA Online and some additional
historical
material on a set of five discs. Alternative B, which would have
the OTA CDROM set distributed to depository libraries, and after
a predetermined period of time, OTA information would be removed
from the GPO Web site, is more costeffective and has fewer
disadvantages/problems
than Alternative A, which has GPO maintaining the OTA information
on its Web site as well as distributing the CDROM collection upon
completion, with no plan for permanent retention of the OTA
files.
The Task Group may wish to consider a third alternative which
effectively combines Alternatives A and B, but has GPO
transferring
the OTA files to NARA for permanent retention, after the CDROM
set of OTA reports has been completed and distributed to
depository
libraries. This would eliminate the problem of NARA not accepting
the CDROM set because it uses the PDF softwaredependent format,
and also would allow NARA to accession only those files which
were unique or of historic value, knowing that a complete set
of files was available through the FDLP.
Regarding the appraisal alternatives, Alternative A, which would
have NARA accession the records of the persons/committees
responsible
for maintaining agency Web sites, with the idea that these
records
would reflect the content and structure of the site, is less
satisfactory
than the other alternatives offered. The 8D report admits that
"This option...ignores the possibility that in the future,
the information posted on the Web site might not appear in any
other format...[so] it is necessary not only to appraise the
records
of those maintaining the files, but the files on the Web site
itself." This is a real situation; the FDLP already has
begun
to distribute federal information solely in an online format.
While Alternative B, which has NARA accessioning all files within
a Web site, is more comprehensive than Alternative C, in which
NARA would accession selected files, there are potential problems
involved in documenting the huge amount of files and links within
some agency Web sites. However, there are also problems with
Alternative
C in which NARA would determine which files may not exist in any
other format as well as which files have historic value, in order
to decide which files to eventually accession.
One of the major issues identified in the 8D report is permanent
FDLP access to electronic information dissemination products and
services. The report asks "If information already has been
distributed in paper, microfiche or CDROM does it make sense to
provide continued online access to the information?" Yet
in Alternative B in the OTA scenario, where the CDROM set of OTA
reports would be distributed to depositories and the OTA
information
would be removed from the GPO Web site, it is considered a
disadvantage
for public access to the reports to be available only at or
through
depository libraries. GPO and NARA should work closely together
to determine the best method of ensuring permanent FDLP access
to government information. The concept of transferring
responsibility
for permanent retention/access from depository libraries to
federal
agencies may need to be revisited with the intent to consider
compromises that fall between the two extremes. For example, one
possibility might be for the FDLP to establish Regional
electronic
depositories which would be responsible for storing and providing
access to information contained on federal agency Web sites; NARA
would be able to select only those files considered to be unique
or of historic value for retention in the National Archives.
The Task Group has brought an important issue to the forefront,
especially since the report also states "If an agency
decides
to discontinue access to information through their Web site, does
GPO have a responsibility to obtain the information and provide
funds and resources for its continued access through the
FDLP?"
Since NARA is not mentioned in the discussion of this issue,
there
certainly is an implication that either depository libraries and
their patrons (the public) should not necessarily expect to
obtain
access to this information through the National Archives, or,
depositories and their patrons will not necessarily find the
information
as easily located and retrieved from NARA as it is through the
FDLP. GPO and NARA should consider all of the federal information
needs of the American public in order to determine the best
arrangement
the two agencies can work out between themselves and among all
federal agencies to ensure permanent public access to electronic
federal government information.
TASK 9: Evaluation of issues surrounding inclusion in
electronic
formats of materials not traditionally included in the FDLP in
either paper or microfiche. Examples include: Federal district
and circuit court opinions (Task 9B), SEC filings (Task 9A),
patents,
military specifications and a variety of other scientific and
technical information (primarily contractor reports).
(Attachment D11).
ABSTRACT: The Working Group is to commended for
evaluating
alternatives for improving access to these valuable materials
through the Federal Depository Library Program. The materials
considered in the Task 9 report have generally not been
distributed
through the program and yet the information clearly meets
requirements
for depository distribution. Cost considerations and other
factors
have restricted its dissemination through the FDLP although other
similar material is distributed. It would enhance public access
and be extremely useful to make STI (scientific and technical)
data available electronically through the program. However, the
imposition of copyrightlike restrictions on the electronic
dissemination
of this data is very problematic.
The types of information considered in Task 9patents, military
specifications and standards, Congressional Research Service
Studies,
and scientific and technical information such as EPA technical
reports and guidelines, DOD technical reports and NTIS
reportsinclude
resources of enormous importance to scholarly and industrial
research
and development. It is very helpful that the Working Group
evaluated
several alternatives for improving access to these materials
through
the FDLP. The materials considered in the Task 9 report have
generally
not been distributed through the program. Many are similar in
nature to report literature, such as Department of Energy and
NASA reports, which have been part of the FDLP. Patent literature
has been available through a separate and more limited patent
library depository program. It would be highly desirable to
improve
access to patents, specifications and standards, CRS Studies,
EPA and DOD technical report literature through the FDLP. The
information available clearly meets requirements for depository
distribution; cost considerations and other factors have
restricted
its dissemination through the FDLP although other similar
material
is distributed.
Voluminous materials such as specifications and standards,
patents,
and STI (scientific and technical information) seem ideally
suited
to ondemand electronic delivery because of the costs and space
required to disseminate, house and maintain either a paper or
a microfiche collection. Any given report, specification or
patent
may be used infrequently, although the cumulative use of the
collection
may be high.
Not addressed in the Task 9 report is the issue of bibliographic
access to these voluminous collections of STI materials.
Increasingly,
print indexes are being discontinued and are not necessarily
being
replaced by improved electronic versions. In the case of NTIS,
its primary catalog and index is now privately produced and is
not available in an electronic version at no cost. By contrast,
the Patent and Trademark Office is greatly improving access to
its materials through online electronic indexing and abstracting.
In order to avoid losing our national research heritage, the
cumulative
results of millions of dollars of investment of public and
private
funds, maintaining both bibliographic access and access to the
print or electronic versions of the documentation itself is
important.
A major obstacle to FDLP dissemination of these valuable
resources
is the costrecovery basis under which some agencies operate.
Ideally,
agencies should be funded to a level to permit nofee
distribution,
at least to depository libraries, and to make charges to others
based on the incremental cost of dissemination. In an electronic
environment, such considerations have led agencies such as NTIS
to propose the imposition of copyrightlike restrictions on
electronic
dissemination of data. Relatively few NTIS publications are
popular
enough to sell enough copies to turn a profit and it would be
possible for competitors to skim off and sell their own copies
of popular titles. NTIS and other agencies are also concerned
that if a depository library made an electronic publication
freely
available, the agency's own market would be negatively affected.
Similar fears of negatively impacting the market for print or
microform materials have not materialized. The proposal outlined
by NTIS would impose copyrightlike restrictions on the use and
manipulation of government information.
Dissemination alternatives: In evaluating alternatives for
dissemination,
it should be assumed that no one alternative is appropriate for
all the types of information discussed under Task 9. Also, it
is critical that longterm access to and preservation of printed
and electronic information be ensured. Alternatives C and D,
which
involve the Government Printing Office in the distribution
process,
would provide longterm access. Similar guarantees should be
assured
for any alternative selected.
Alternative A and B: Alternative A provides that agencies would
make their own information available for dissemination through
the Internet, at no cost to the user. The GPO Locator would
direct
users, including depository library users, to the agency site.
Alternative B is similar, except that agencies would charge a
fee for their information and GPO would negotiate an agreement
to pay the costs of online access for depository libraries. The
agreement could include limitations on number of users or on
remote
access via library networks, but would not include copyrightlike
restrictions on use or reuse of information.
Alternative A and B may be appropriate for voluminous data such
as patents and information under the custody of NTIS or DTIC.
Both alternatives would greatly improve access to materials which
have never been available through the FDLP, and in both
instances,
the FDLP would provide assistance to users in locating and using
the data. It is also true that displaying and printing extensive
documents with
tables and graphics will not be easy, and both libraries and
endusers
will need to acquire appropriate equipment, software, AND
experience
in making this information accessible. Even when information is
disseminated at no fee, the costs to users will be significant.
Among the disadvantages of both alternatives would be that public
access will put additional loads on agency computing and
telecommunications
resources as well as on support services. Nearly 1400 libraries
could be potential users and would need access training and
support.
In the current budgetary environment, it is unrealistic to expect
that Congress will elect to completely subsidize the Internet
dissemination of patents and STI. Thus nofee access through the
FDLP would be a substantial improvement in public access. Other
data, such as specifications, are currently available at no cost
and should continue to be, since electronic distribution may be
a more costeffective alternative for the agency.
Alternative C: This option provides that GPO would establish a
database of information from agency sites which is tailored to
the FDLP. This alternative would relieve agencies of concerns
about unauthorized access to other information in its files, as
well as the user load on its systems. It would also provide a
desirable redundancy of access, maintaining availability of data
in the case of damage at another site. Because of the voluminous
nature of some of this information, it may not be economically
feasible for GPO to create and maintain a separate database.
However,
for less extensive materials from agencies with security
concerns,
this alternative could be ideal. Under Alternative C, the
standard
interfaces GPO could offer, and the additional bibliographic
access
it might provide, would be important contributions to effective
use of the information.
Alternatives D and E: In Alternatives D and E, GPO would
distribute
information downloaded from online sources to the FDLP in CDROM
format, either produced by agencies (D) or GPO (E). CDROM
distribution
is the least desirable alternative, for a variety of reasons:
the time delay in distributing the CDROMS; the sheer number of
CDROMS that would need to be distributed; the difficulty in
locating
the required data on the CD; and the inability to update material
distributed in CDROM format. Longterm access to these materials
must be ensured. At present, CDROMS may offer an edge in terms
of longterm access, but they do not provide the kind of ondemand
access that may be more appropriate for large collections of data
in which any given title receives little use.
Alternative F: This option was proposed by the National Technical
Information Service after the completion of the Task 9 report.
It is a variation on Alternative B, in which the information is
available from an agency site, for a fee, but without the
involvement
of the Government Printing Office. It is a unique model in that
valuable materials would be made available to the public for the
first time through depository libraries, and yet the materials
would not be an official part of the FDLP. The NTIS proposal
requires
an agreement from participating libraries not to release the
electronic
file outside the library or use it for commercial purposes. Such
a restriction is necessary, according to NTIS, to assure that
depository access and use do not infringe on the agency's own
market. At the same time, this in effect amounts to a
copyrightlike
restriction on the downstream use of these materials and would
put librarians in the position of having to limit or even police
the use of these materials.
On one hand, this overture from NTIS should be viewed as an
opportunity
to make important STI materials more readily available to the
public through depository libraries. On the other hand, the
proposal
places restrictions on the use of government information that
are expressly prohibited in Principle 5 of the draft report and
indeed in the Paperwork Reduction Act. Of concern with the NTIS
proposal is that it might become an accepted model for other
electronic
government information services. Therein lies a grave danger to
the public's nofee access through the FDLP. It is a serious issue
which requires Congressional study and review.
Regarding the NTIS proposal, it would be useful for the pilot
project to be carefully developed with input from the depository
library community and the NTIS Advisory group. This is a very
important undertaking that will add valuable materials to the
program. Libraries will have a great deal of work to do doing
the pilot project to establish mechanisms for printing documents.
The pilot project should be useful for testing mechanisms of
delivering
material electronically to individual users that would not damage
NTIS's market.
TASK 9A: Evaluate issues surrounding inclusion of the
Securities
Exchange Commission (SEC) EDGAR System in the Federal Depository
Library Program when the information is not already included in
paper or microfiche format. (Attachment D-12)
ABSTRACT: It is commendable that the SEC has taken full
advantage of WWW technologies to provide nofee access to the
EDGAR
database, a valuable public resource to company records. Task
9A proposes two alternatives for public access to EDGAR through
the FDLP: the first suggests using the GPO Locator service to
enhance the public's ability to access EDGAR through the Internet
but does not address the need for multiple mirror sites nor the
long term need for ready access to historical EDGAR information;
the second, the distribution of CDROMs, may resolve the multiple
site access and long term storage issues but would add expense
and rely on a technology that may soon become outdated. Both
alternatives
have merit but a combination of both may be most desirable. A
third alternative could be considered, not to replace the others,
in which libraries, community civic networks, library consortia,
and other notforprofit organizations form partnerships with
federal
government information producing agencies. These partnerships
will assure ready and timely access to EDGAR resources through
redundancy of access to the information, as well as long term
preservation of this important information.
The 9A Task Group has selected the SEC EDGAR System as an model
of using the Internet to increase public access to electronic
information. The commitment of SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt to
resist
pressure to privatize the EDGAR System and post it directly to
the WWW serves as a model for other federal information
providers.
Appropriately, with the advent of Internet access, Chairman
Levitt
has concluded that the SEC has the responsibility to make these
materials equally available to the publicindividual users,
libraries,
and the private sector.
In the draft study, Task 9A describes two alternatives for
providing
access to SEC EDGAR information. In the first, access to the
EDGAR
system would be strictly online; GPO and depository libraries
would incur little expense. It is assumed that GPO would add
value
through sophisticated indexing in its Locator service which would
be used by the public, libraries, and private sector information
businesses alike. The FDLP ensures that the knowledge and skills
of government information specialists
are available in all Congressional districts to assist and train
members of the public unfamiliar with accessing federal
information.
In this alternative the SEC and the public derive significant
value from GPO indexing and depository library assistance at very
little expense.
A key concern with Alternative 1 is long term access to EDGAR
records. The FDLP has traditionally guaranteed long term access
to federal publications through regional depository libraries.
Alternative 1 suggests no mechanism that will assure the ready
availability of government publications that have been provided
through regionals. Though the SEC is engaged in negotiations with
NARA to schedule retention of EDGAR materials, we are concerned
that access to archived federal information is less immediate
through NARA than it is through regionals.
A second key concern raised in Alternative 1 is redundancy of
accessthat is, the availability of access through more than one
source in the event that the primary channel (in this case the
SEC) is interrupted. Given current Internet capacity and
technology,
disruptions of service are not uncommon. The stability of
individual
systems is also at best uncertain, as typified by system crashes
and power failures. This option provides no alternative for
accessing
EDGAR data in the event that the SEC data platform is
incapacitated
or regions of the country are unable to connect via the Internet
to SEC databases.
Alternative 2 proposes the tangible distribution of SEC data to
depository libraries on CDROMs and provides a possible solution
to both problems of long term access and lack of redundancy. By
depositing EDGAR data on CDROMs in regional depositoriesor some
other subset of depository librariescomplete sets of EDGAR
information
will be available at nofee from multiple sites. These libraries
would accept their traditional responsibilities for maintaining
the information and providing it to the public either directly
or through other depository libraries. As major players in the
increasingly electronic information universe, they would bear
the responsibility for migrating the data to new media as
information
storage technologies evolve. In this way, multiple sites would
provide long term access to EDGAR information resources. We
recognize
that this alternative incurs potentially significant expenses.
However, the value added by these costs in terms of the free flow
of federal information to the public warrants the investment.
A possible third alternative would be the establishment of
partnerships
between the SEC and individual libraries, library consortia,
library
associations, community networks, or other notforprofit
organizations.
In such partnerships the partner libraries would operate under
agreements with the SEC to serve as nofee mirror sites for the
EDGAR database; provisions for long term access would be
included.
The federal agencies responsible for guaranteeing public access
to federal information, such as the GPO, NARA, and OMB, would
provide guidance and coordination in drawing up such
partnerships.
In this alternative the value of EDGAR is still guaranteed to
the public but at little expense to the federal government.
Partner
libraries would accept this responsibility as a part of their
mission and service to their constituencies, and with the
understanding
that many other libraries are embarking on similar arrangements
to provide nofee access to other federal, state, and local
government
information resources.
Overall, Alternative 2 provides needed dependability and resolves
the important questions of longterm and redundant access
associated
with the strictly online scenario proposed in Alternative 1.
However,
the increased expenses associated with Alternative 2 may suggest
that additional models, such as that of partnerships with nofee
mirror sites, be explored.
TASK 9B: Evaluate how United States Court of Appeals
published
slip opinions might be included in the Federal Depository Library
Program (FDLP) electronically, although they have not been a part
of
the FDLP in either paper or microfiche format. (Attachment
D13)
ABSTRACT: United States Courts of Appeals slip opinions
have not previously been included in the Federal Depository
Library
Program (FDLP). We believe that incorporating the electronic
version
of these slip opinions into the FDLP is consistent with the view
of the Senate, expressed in Senate Report 104114, that advances
in technology provide new opportunities for enhancing and
improving
public access to Government information. The development of
depository
access should be based on new and emerging Internet technologies,
and not on the outdated bulletin board systems which are rapidly
becoming obsolete. In order to provide an electronic product that
would be useful to the public, any option selected must be able
to guarantee the authenticity of the opinions and ensure the
provision
of long term access to this essential public information.
In a letter dated February 16, 1996, the American Association
of Law Libraries (AALL) provided comments on the Task 9B report
which investigated the possibility of including U.S. Courts of
Appeals slip opinions electronically in the Federal Depository
Library Program (FDLP). We appreciate the fact that you took
these
comments under consideration and were very pleased to see that
many of them were incorporated into the latest draft Task 9B
report.
The Courts of Appeals slip opinions have not, to this date, been
included in the FDLP. Incorporating electronic slip opinions into
the FDLP is a perfect example of the use of advances in
technology
to provide new opportunities for enhancing and improving public
access to Government information. (S. Rep. No. 114, 104th Cong.,
1st Sess. 48 (1995)). Our associations endorse the inclusion of
the slip opinions in the FDLP as a very positive step towards
realizing the Senate*s goal of improved public access. Although
Task 9B is limited to U.S. Courts of Appeals slip opinions, we
believe that it should serve as a model to provide the public
with electronic nofee access to the opinions of the Federal
District
Courts as well.
Whichever alternative is ultimately selected to provide
electronic
slip opinions through the FDLP, there are two important issues
that need to be addressed. The first is authenticity. A means
of guaranteeing the authenticity of the electronic version is
essential. Law is a discipline which relies on precedent. Legal
researchers, including legislators, attorneys, law students and
faculty, and the general public, should all be assured that the
information is both reliable and the most current authoritative
version. The second issue is preservation and long term access.
In Section 4, the draft report raises certain questions that need
to be addressed yet it fails to suggest any answers. We believe
that, as technology advances, the public has the right to a
seamless
transition from the slip opinion to the final authoritative
electronic
version. In addition, the government has the responsibility to
ensure the permanent availability of the final authoritative
version,
at no cost to the public, and in a format that will be usable
with future technologies, as current software and hardware become
obsolete. We affirm the position expressed in the February 16
letter that options B and C are not viable. Both of these options
rely on bulletin board systems (BBS), a model that has several
disadvantages. First, BBSs use a technology that is rapidly
becoming
obsolete. In contrast, the Internet alternatives offer the
advantages
of speed of transmission and full text searching. Second, the
BBS model is decentralized and lacks a single standard setting
authority. With no central authority, the slip opinions are
likely
to suffer from a lack of standardization as it applies to file
formats as well as search and retrieval software. In addition,
this lack of standardization inhibits verification of
authenticity
and complicates preservation efforts.
The following comments on Alternatives A, D, and E are in
addition
to those expressed in the letter of February 16, 1996.
Alternative A: GPO ACCESS
The success of this option, to provide slip opinions through GPO
ACCESS, is dependent upon changes to Title 44 which would require
the courts to supply GPO with the electronic slip opinions.
Although
the Courts of Appeals have historically been granted a waiver
from the requirement to use the printing services of the
Government
Printing Office (GPO), such a waiver is not necessarily
appropriate
in an electronic environment, and would inhibit any efforts to
provide comprehensive access to all of the slip opinions through
the FDLP. In addition, to be effective, any such change to Title
44 must include adequate enforcement provisions. The use of GPO
ACCESS would meet the Congressional goal of improving and
enhancing
public access to government information as long as GPO ACCESS
remains available free of charge to the public. In addition, the
GPO ACCESS option would provide one centralized standard setting
authority in GPO. Preservation and long term access will however,
depend on continued long term funding of the GPO ACCESS system
by the Congress.
Alternative D: Judiciary Web Site
This option, to provide slip opinions on the Judiciary web site,
would be an improvement over the current bulletin board systems
since one central standard setting authority, presumably the
Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), would be established. While this
option would certainly be a technical improvement over the
current
decentralized system of BBSs, which we consider to be obsolete,
nofee public access must be ensured. Again, preservation and long
term access will depend on funding and a commitment on the part
of the AO to guarantee maintenance and archiving of the opinions.
Alternative E: Consortium of Law Schools
The efforts of the law schools which provide Internet access to
the slip opinions are notable because the consortium is committed
to making them available to the public free of charge. Although
this model is decentralized, there is evidence of law school
cooperation
(e.g., in the development of keyword searching across sites) that
could be expanded to include standards for authenticity,
preservation
and long term access. Ultimately however, preservation and long
term access will depend on the continued efforts of each
individual
law school.
TASK 10A: Review the effects of offering free public access
to STATUSA information products and services through the Federal
Depository Library Program (FDLP). (Attachment D-14)
ABSTRACT: STATUSA, a costrecovery service within the U.S.
Department of Commerce, produces business and economic
information
products, including the Economic Bulletin Board (EBB), the
National
Trade Data Bank (NTDB) on CDROM, and STATUSA/Internet. These
products
are available through the Federal Depository Library Program
(FDLP),
and are among the most heavily used electronic government
information
sources at depository libraries.
This task report articulates the dilemma, from an agency's
perspective,
of trying to balance the competing mandates of costrecovery and
wide public dissemination. STATUSA is the product of an agency
that recognizes the value of including its information in the
FDLP. But while the agency has cooperated with GPO to provide
its products to the public through depository libraries, public
access is restricted by current practices and pending changes
to pricing and access policies. The federal government should
adequately fund public access to government information resources
produced for public use, and must address the role of
costrecovery
programs in the menu of public information dissemination
services.
Competing laws mandate, in some cases, that agencies both provide
nofee access to the public through depository libraries and at
the same time recover costs for those same services. In
addressing
this apparent dilemma for selffunded agencies, Congress should,
at minimum, reaffirm the public's right to nofee access to
government
information through the FDLP. A broader public deliberation of
the issues of "fee vs. nofee" must take place in order
to clarify these difficult policy and technical issues.
The list of tasks for the GPO study task groups included the key
issue of feebased services in the tenth task: "A review of
Federal programs permitting or requiring the sale of information
to recover costs, and the effects on efforts to assure free
public
access through the FDLP." This task addresses a central
policy
question, where emerging technologies are providing both
opportunities
for broader access and problems in identifying and recovering
costs. While there are many examples of programs which fall into
this category, the study includes only two case studies, STATUSA
(Task 10A) and MEDLINE (Task 10B). Since this is such an
important
and complex issue, it is one which requires additional data and
consideration by Congress to reconcile conflicting policies and
assure appropriate support for programs which carry out the
government's
information principles.
As a case study, the STATUSA program is an excellent illustration
of the problems faced by an agency which operates in a feebased
environment and yet wishes to provide a level of access to its
materials through the FDLP. In trying to adapt the FDLP model
for tangible products to the electronic environment, STATUSA is
facing the difficulties inherent in controlling the use of
electronic
information, which is easily networked and shared and hard to
contain. Because the products from STATUSA are enormously useful
to FDLP users, the libraries want to provide the broadest
possible
access.
Carrying the traditional FDLP model into the electronic age is
more complicated than it may seem at first. For example, the NTDB
CDROM includes on it about 250,000 publications. Many of these
represent materials which were formerly in the FDLP in paper.
For each of these publications, a depository library received
one copy without charge; if it wanted more copies, it could
purchase
them. At any one time, multiple users might be reading many of
these multiple publications in a depository library. If the users
wished to have their own copies of materials, they could buy them
from government sources or pay for photocopies in the library.
As printing ceases and publications are bundled onto the NTDB,
the depository library still receives one copy without charge,
but now it has thousands of publications on one CD. Unless the
CD is placed on a network, the number of possible simultaneous
users of these many publications is cut down to one. From the
library point of view, networking of the NTDB provides a level
of access similar to that provided in the paper environment, but
from the agency point of view it could cut into the sales which
are necessary to sustain the product.
The development of STATUSA/Internet introduces additional issues.
The Internet product is not identical to the CDROM. There are
many time series and matrix tables on the CD which are not
online,
and these are of major interest to the research community, and
thus should remain in the FDLP. But the Internet STATUSA provides
timely access and consistent searching, significant advantages
for many FDLP users. The establishment of the Internet version
has presented the agency with the challenge of registering users
and controlling their use of the information they receive. The
administrative problem of registering depository libraries was
solved by the cooperation of GPO's Library Programs Service,
which
took over that responsibility, and that cooperative model
deserves
replication for other agency Internet services which might be
added to the program.
Controlling the use of information is more problematic, and
introduces
the issue of asking libraries to enforce copyrightlike
restrictions
on the use of government information which go beyond any controls
libraries needed to impose on the use of tangible formats. Users
have always been free to photocopy paper and fiche publications,
and use the copies without restriction. Electronic dissemination
provides the opportunity for much easier and broader
redissemination,
and this could undermine the relationship between publishing
agencies
and the FDLP. With paper and microfiche formats, nofee use in
depository libraries was not a serious threat to the sale of
materials
for individuals, organizations and businesses which wished to
have the convenience of their own copies. STATUSA is trying to
replicate that model with the provision of one free password for
use in each depository library, but the libraries are anxious
to provide access to more than one user at a time through
networking.
Only one person is some congressional districts with only one
depository library would be able to access this materials at any
one time under this proposal. Since the Internet offers the
opportunity
to provide public access to government information when and where
it is needed, the government needs to come to grips with the
issue
of support for that broad and beneficial access.
This same issue was faced by the GPO itself, which like STATUSA
had statutory language which permitted charging reasonable fees
(for users other than depository libraries) for its online GPO
Access system. After more than a year of experience with
maintaining
complex registration procedures and charging nondepository users
for access, the GPO decided to make the entire system free to
all users. The resulting changes in use and in costs and revenues
for the GPO would provide useful additional data and should be
incorporated into this study.
The two alternatives presented in the Task 10A report seem to
imply that the NTDB CDROM would remain in the depository program
since the contents are not all covered in the Internet version
and the CDROM provides longterm access for information not
included
in the Internet version. The only real difference between the
two alternatives is where the funding for the costs of Internet
access would come from. Alternative A would fund depository
access
from other STATUSA fees, since the agency no longer has
sufficient
appropriated funds to support FDLP participation. This might seem
similar to universal service in the telecommunications field,
where all users pay to support basic service for those who would
not otherwise have it. It would succeed only if libraries could
limit redissemination so that the income which supported the
program
was not destroyed, a delicate balance indeed.
Alternative B acknowledges that there is a cost to providing FDLP
access to STATUSA, and proposes that GPO would pay for depository
access through its appropriated funds. This option includes some
cost figures which may have been superseded by more
recentlyreleased
fee schedules from STATUSA, which propose higher fees for
networking
both the CDs and STATUSA/Internet. The proposal to have GPO pay
for FDLP access to feebased government information services
appears
in several of the task reports and also in the GPO's Strategic
Plan, but there seems to be little data on the actual costs which
this might incur. From the user's point of view, the essential
issue again is that the government should fund adequate public
access to the information resources for which the American public
has already invested.
The "Issues to be Addressed" section of this task group
articulates the difficult problems of funding public access and
the "fee vs. nofee" controversy. Depository librarians
see the great variety of uses made of data provided through
STATUSA,
and are convinced that the public benefits from the broadest
possible
transfer of economic information, to new and established
businesses
as well as to students and researchers. To make such information
totally feebased would be contrary to the principles set forth
in the GPO study.
The challenge faced by agencies, the Congress, and depository
libraries is to develop a new model for access to electronic
government
information, which will continue to provide the public with
access
to government information which is mandated in Title 44 and
reinforced
by many other statutes and directives. The tension and even
conflict
between statutes which require access and those which require
cost recovery is exacerbated by new technologies, even as those
technologies provide opportunities for more efficiency and better
access. More deliberation of these vital public policy issues
is necessary.
TASK 10B: Evaluate alternative for including the National
Library
of Medicine (NLM) MEDLINE data, available as an electronic
feebased
service, in the FDLP. (Attachment D-15)
ABSTRACT: This Task Group has bought together GPO and
NLM
for a serious discussion of the issue of providing depository
libraries with access to MEDLINE. Further discussions should take
place regarding NLM's proposal for a pilot project with a limited
number of depository libraries. Since Grateful Med is now
available
through the Internet, that option should be explored further.
Costs of providing this access can be more accurately assessed
after a pilot activity.
There currently exist many access points for health sciences
librarians,
health professionals, health sciences students, and historians
to use the library's resources. All hospitals and medical schools
offer access to MEDLINE and other database resources and Grateful
Med is designed specifically for the enduser searcher. In
addition,
many public libraries offer CDROM or other access to these files.
The transition to an electronic environment in this case might
well involve an examination of existing offerings of this
information
and may well present depository libraries and the FDLP the
opportunity
to explore cooperative arrangements with NLM for services and
training.
Attachment N:
Comments from the National Commission on Libraries and
Information
Science
Attachment N
Comments from the National Commission on Libraries and
Information
Science
Statement of April 18, 1996
On April 18, 1996, there was a meeting of the FDLP Study working
group and advisors in order to provide the advisors with an
opportunity
to present their preliminary reactions on the draft Report to
Congress. The minutes of the meeting are provided as Attachment
J. This is the supplemental statement submitted by the National
Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS).
Preliminary Comments
Joan R. Challinor, Member
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
628 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
April 18, 1996
2:00 p.m.
A. Introduction
The U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
(NCLIS) is pleased to provide these preliminary comments on the
draft Study Report./1/ Jeanne Hurley Simon, Chairperson of the
National
Commission regrets that she is not able to be here this afternoon
to offer these comments. Jeanne is in Illinois today
participating
in a program at Southern Illinois University.
/1/ U.S. Government Printing Office. Report to Congress:
Study to
Identify Measures
Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic
Federal
Depository Library
Program. (Draft) Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1996.
Our comments result from an initial review of the draft Study
Report by the members of the Commission's Information Policies
Committee, chaired by Commissioner Carol K. DiPrete of
Providence,
Rhode Island. Because the members of the National Commission have
not yet had the opportunity to fully review and discuss the draft
Study Report, these preliminary comments do not reflect NCLIS'
official endorsement. NCLIS will submit additional comments in
the next several weeks, once the full Commission has had a chance
to review and discuss the issues included in the Report./2/
/2/ The Commission later determined that no further comments
were necessary.
The National Commission appreciates the opportunity to comment
on this draft Study Report. Congress displayed strong leadership
in directing the Public Printer to study the potential of new
electronic technologies for improving public access and use of
government information. Actions based on the study's results and
conclusions, however, should balance Congressional concerns for
cost efficiencies with basic principles regarding the creation,
access, use, and dissemination of government information.
The draft Study Report represents a significant contribution to
the future of the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). The
Government Printing Office (GPO) and the Working Group are to
be commended for their efforts to address complex issues related
to effective public access to government information. The draft
Study Report reflects a thoughtful review of the opportunities
for enhancing public access to government information. Although
the Study was conducted within strictly mandated time
constraints,
implementation planning requires careful planning and analysis
to ensure effective public
access to government information. Collaborative transition
planning
involving Congress, GPO, and the National Commission could serve
as a model for improving and enhancing public access to Federal
government information.
The Commission's comments address the following areas:
1. The National Commission's Principles of Public Information;
2. Results of recent NCLIS surveys of public library Internet
involvement;
3. The Commission's interest to assist with a FDLP implementation
study;
4. NCLIS' general concerns about citizen access to federal
information.
As background, first let me give you an quick overview of NCLIS'
statutory purpose and some information about the Commission's
role in developing the Principles of Public Information.
B. Background on the Commission
The National Commission was established in 1970 (P.L. 91345) as
an independent Federal agency to advise the President and the
Congress on national and international policies and plans related
to libraries and information services. The Commission consists
of 14 members who are appointed by the President and confirmed
by the Senate for fiveyear terms. Only five NCLIS members are
professional librarians or information professionals, the
remainder
are those persons having special competence or interest in the
needs of our society for library and information services. The
Librarian of Congress serves as the 15th Commission member. NCLIS
is a small microagency, with an annual federal appropriation of
less than $1 million a year. The Commission receives additional
support for cooperative programs with the Department of Education
and the State Department.
The Commission's mission as stated in the enabling legislation
has been broadly interpreted in our 25year history. By law, NCLIS
develops plans and recommendations for the implementation of
national
policies related to library and information services adequate
to meet the needs of the people of the US. Commission activities
are designed to assure optimum and effective utilization of the
Nation's educational and information resources. The National
Commission
does not represent the interests and concerns of the library and
information community. As a citizens' advisory body, NCLIS
represents
the public's interest.
C. Principles of Public Information
Throughout the Commission's history, national information policy
issues have occupied NCLIS. In the 1970's, NCLIS published the
Rockefeller report on National Information Policy./3/ This 1976
report
called for the development of a coordinated national information
policy. The rationale for this report was stated as follows:
/3/ Domestic Council Committee on the Right of Privacy,
Honorable
Nelson A.
Rockefeller, Chairman. National Information Policy: Report to
the
President.
Washington, D.C.: NCLIS, 1976.
"A great number of public policy questions are being
generated
by advances in computer and communications technology, by shifts
in the United States economy from a manufacturing to an
information
base, and by citizen demands for clarification of their rights
to have and control information."
These same concerns are reflected in GPO's March 1996 draft Study
Report. Over the last two decades NCLIS has studied many of the
public policy questions presented in the Rockefeller report. As
a result, the Commission developed the Principles of Public
Information
in response to a 1988 Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)
report
titled Informing the Nation: Federal Information Dissemination
in an Electronic Age./4/ This report addressed opportunities to
improve
the dissemination of federal information by highlighting problems
of maintaining equity of public access to federal information
in electronic formats and by defining the respective roles of
federal agencies and the private sector in the electronic
dissemination
process.
/4/ Office of Technology Assessment. Informing the Nation:
Federal
Information
Dissemination in an Electronic Age. Washington, D.C.: OTA, 1988.
After an NCLISsponsored public forum held in 1989 to review
policy
issues raised in the OTA report, the Commission worked to develop
a consensus among interested parties as to the basic, underlying
principles that should shape all decisions in and out of
government
regarding information policies, procedures and practices. These
principles were developed to provide guidance for the formulation
of national information policies.
The Commission's work resulted in a statement of Principles of
Public Information, adopted by NCLIS July 29, 1990. I will not
review these eight statements because they are included as
Attachment
E to the March 1996 draft Study Report. The eight principles were
constructed as an interrelated whole. They are intended to form
a foundation for decisions and policies throughout the federal
government. Each principle should be considered in relationship
to all the others; one is not more important than another.
As a means of providing comparative information about government
information principles the Commission has prepared a handout for
distribution. It's a chart showing the Commission's Principles
of Public Information, the Principles of Government Information
and Services from A NATION OF OPPORTUNITY, the final report of
the NII Advisory Council,/5/ and the Principles for Federal
Government
Information from the present draft Study Report on the FDLP./6/
The
chart illustrates the similarity between these three different
sets of principles. Each articulation underscores important
concerns
about the accessibility, usability and reliability of government
or federal information resources.
/5/ U.S. Advisory Council on the National Information
Infrastructure. A Nation of
Opportunity: Realizing the Promise of the Information
Superhighway.
West Publishing,
1996.
/6/ U.S. Government Printing Office. Report to Congress:
Study to
Identify Measures
Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic
Federal
Depository Library
Program. (Draft) Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1996.
Also, these three sets of principles reflect the same values that
form the basis for our democratic society. What is critical about
each of these statements of principles related to public or
government
information is the focus of attention on the needs of the user
or the public. The principles underlying the dissemination of
federal information are formed from the perspective of the user
or the citizen who requires and is entitled to have "open,
timely, and uninhibited" access to public information. This
user perspective and orientation are essential to guide plans
for a successful transition to a more electronic future program.
D. Findings from NCLIS studies of public libraries and the
Internet
An overview of the results of several recent studies/7/ that the
Commission has sponsored on public libraries and the Internet
provides background. Our first study, in 1994, found that 20.9%
of the nation's libraries had Internet connections. Our 1996
study
shows that percentage has increased to 44.6%.
/7/ McClure, Charles R., John Carlo Bertot and Douglas L.
Zweizig.
Public Libraries and
the Internet: Study Results, Policy Issues, and Recommendations.
Washington, D.C.:
NCLIS, 1994. Electronic version: http://www.nclis.gov; and
McClure,
Charles R., John
Carlo Bertot and John C. Beachboard. Internet Costs and Cost
Models
for Public
Libraries: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: NCLIS, 1995.
Electronic
version:
http://dataserver.syr.edu/~macbeth/Project/Faculty/
McClure.NCLIS.Report.html
Public Library Internet Connectivity by Population Served
1994-1996
Population of % Public Libraries Connected
Legal Service Area/8/ 1994 1996
/8/ Population of legal service area is the number of people
in the
geographic area for
which a public library has been established to offer services and
from
which (or on
behalf of which) the library derives income, plus an areas served
under
contract for
which the library is the primary service provider.
1 million + 77% 82%
500,000999,999 64% 93.1%
250,000499,999 76% 96.1%
100,000249,999 54.4% 88.2%
50,00099,999 43.7% 75%
25,00049,999 27.6% 73.1%
10,00024,999 23.2% 53.1%
5,0009,999 12.9% 40.6%
Less than 5,000 13.3% 31.3%
Total Public Libraries Connected 20.9% 44.6%
The 23.7% increase in public library Internet connectivity
between
1994 and 1996 provides strong evidence of the rapid pace of
change
that is characteristic of electronic networked information and
communication technologies. Plans for a transition to a more
electronic
FDLP must address this extremely rapid pace of change. The rapid
pace of change is further reinforced by public libraries
responding
to the 1996 NCLIS survey question regarding their plans for
connecting
to the Internet over the next 12 months:
Public Library Internet Connectivity Plans by Population
Served
1996
Population of % Planning Connections
Legal Service Area Yes/Staff Yes/Public No Plans
1 million + 0%/9/ 0% 0%
500,000999,999 2.4% 6.9% 0%
250,000499,999 2% 4.2% 0%
100,000249,999 4.7% 12.9% 0.9%
50,00099,999 7.5% 13.4% 4.3%
25,00049,999 9% 12.5% 8.1%
10,00024,999 10.4% 20.6% 16.9%
5,0009,999 11% 26.8% 22.2%
Less than 5,000 8.3% 26.6% 31.3%
Public Library Connectivity Plans 16.3% 40.4% 39.6%
/9/ Those public libraries that are not now connected to the
Internet
and did not respond
or responded that hey are not planning to connect to the Internet
are
represented by
0%.
Of those public libraries that reported no Internet connection
in 1996, 16.3% indicate that they plan to establish connections
in the next 12 months for library staff use only. In addition,
40.4% of public libraries with no Internet connection in 1996
report that they are planning to provide public access Internet
services in the next year. From these survey results it appears
that public library Internet connectivity could well reach
between
60% and 75% by 1997.
For those public libraries that provide public access to Internet
services in 1996, institutions serving larger populations were
more likely to provide public access to WWW graphical services
than libraries serving smaller communities. NCLIS 1996 survey
information about the types of Internet services provided by
public
libraries to the public is summarized in the following table:
Public Access Internet Services Provided by Public Libraries
1996
Population Email NewsGroup WWWtext WWWgraphic Gopher
Svcs
1 million + 13.9% 13.0% 33.8% 54.6% 32.9%
500,000999,999 11.3% 11.3% 46.3% 44.7% 45.7%
250,000499,999 10.0% 8.8% 39.8% 33.9% 35.0%
100,000249,999 10.3% 20.3% 37.9% 42.7% 34.8%
50,00099,999 4.8% 15.5% 28.5% 29.2% 29.4%
25,00049,999 9.2% 13.2% 25.1% 28.1% 24.3%
10,00024,999 9.8% 13.6% 23.0% 27.6% 24.8%
5,0009,999 10.0% 5.7% 15.9% 17.5% 14.4%
Less than 5,000 12.1% 9.6% 15.7% 13.9% 17.8%
Overall 9.9% 11.6% 22.2% 23.6% 22.6%
Those public libraries that provide public access to Internet
and that serve smaller legal service area populations are less
likely to offer advanced WWW graphical services. This finding
has important consequences for planning a more electronic FDLP.
It would appear that states with more rural populations served
by smaller public libraries will have greater dependence on
depository
libraries to offer electronic access to government information.
In addition to the 1994 and 1996 surveys of penetration of
Internet
access, in 1995 the Commission studied the costs of public
library
connections to the Internet. The NCLIS Internet cost study showed
that public libraries are establishing Internet connections for
onetime costs that vary between $1,475 and $266,375, with
recurring
costs between $12,635 and $154,220. With investments and annual
costs of this magnitude, it is important to consider the
investments
required for depository libraries to implement a transition to
a more electronic FDLP. Focusing attention on the costs of the
transition is critical since depository libraries will have to
address public needs for accessing federal information in print,
microformat, as well as electronic media.
The National Commission plans to provide additional information
regarding the costs of public library Internet connectivity in
subsequent comments on the draft Study Report in the next few
weeks as the results of the NCLIS 1996 public libraries and the
Internet survey are analyzed and made available./10/
/10/ Information on the survey was provided to GPO, but not as
formal comments on
the FDLP Study, so it is not included in this report. The survey
results
are available
on the NCLIS World Wide Web site at http://www.nclis.gov.
These three NCLIS studies provide information useful in
developing
plans related to the transition to a more electronic federal
depository
library system. As dissemination of government information
increasingly
involves electronic technologies, libraries will be required to
receive, interpret, and research that information for their
constituents.
Depository library costs associated with this transition may not
be comparable to current contributions and investments, and may
require additional commitments from a restructured FDLP. The
Commission
will provide additional pertinent details from the 1996 survey
of public libraries and the Internet when further comments are
submitted on the draft Study Report in the next few weeks.10
E. Implementation study of transition to a more electronic
FDLP
The access needs of the general public for federal information
should guide the development of transition plans and strategies.
Successful plans and strategies require current, reliable, and
consistent information about federal agency and depository
library
capabilities, as well as information about how the public's need
for convenient and inexpensive access to government information
can be effectively addressed with electronic technologies.
The fast pace of technological change presents challenges for
successful transition planning. This need for planning
information
can be addressed by collaborative efforts involving the National
Commission, Congress, and GPO. Survey information about current
agency and depository library capabilities are needed to provide
assistance and coordination in identifying appropriate technical
implementation assistance for transition to a restructured FDLP.
Planners need assistance in gathering survey data and performing
related analysis as background information for successful plans.
In this regard, the Commission finds that a twoyear transition
period is insufficient to ensure successful transition. Such an
abbreviated implementation period would risk serious impediments
for public access to government information. The rapid pace of
change, both in network communications technologies and in
library
adoption of advanced electronic information services, requires
a longer transition period. A more reasonable implementation
planning
period for such a transition would be five years, from 1996 to
2001, as has been proposed in Federal Depository Library
Program:
Information Dissemination and Access Strategic Plan, FY 1996 FY
2001.
F. Evaluation of how well the public's need for access to
public
information is being met
The draft Study Report provides a valuable planning document to
provide the American public with greater access to government
information in electronic form through a restructured FDLP. It
is important to consider these plans within a broad
governmentwide
context. As individual agencies, offices, and programs make
expanded
use of the Internet and World Wide Web publishing capabilities,
mounting home pages and opening sites, challenges related to
preservation,
authenticity, access, cost, and locator service increase.
This decentralized proliferation of government information
dissemination
and publishing has a direct impact on public access. There must
be evaluation of how well the publics' need for access to public
information is being addressed through the federal depository
library program, in relation to the publics' use of the GPO
Access
Service, the Library of Congress' THOMAS system, through agencies
Government Information Locator Service (GILS), through agencies
Internet gopher sites, World Wide Web (WWW) home pages, and by
other electronic means. Cooperative projects involving the
National
Commission could study and analyze these contextual issues
relating
to public access to government information and services in order
to recommend plans that address the user's needs for access. In
this area, NCLIS has explored plans for evaluating the
effectiveness
of GILS over the past year in meeting the public's need for
locating
and accessing government information from a variety of different
sources.
While concerns regarding dissemination format are justified, the
future structure, design, and effectiveness of a more electronic
FDLP need to be seen from the user's perspective. The transition
from a legacy of paper and microfiche to digital transmission
will have important consequences on patterns of access to
government
information. The transition to a more electronic FDLP involves
more than a single dimension of change from inkonpaper document
distribution to document transmission via electronic
networks. Understanding the implications of this transition on
public use of government information is critical for the future.
We must work to assure the right and responsibility of every
American
to be informed as Thomas Jefferson identified in 1816.
[The table on the following page was submitted as part of the
NCLIS statement.]
Submitted by:
Peter R. Young
Executive Director
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
1110 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 820
Washington, D.C. 20005
Principles of Public Information
US National Commission on Libraries and Information
Science
29 June 1990
1. The public has the right of access to public information.
2. The Federal Government should guarantee the integrity and
preservation of
public information, regardless of its format.
3. The Federal Government should guarantee the dissemination,
reproduction,
and redistribution of public information.
4. The Federal Government should safeguard the privacy of
persons
who use or
request information, as well as persons about whom information
exists
in
government records.
5. The Federal Government should ensure a wide diversity of
sources of
access, private as well as governmental, to public information.
6. The Federal Government should not allow cost to obstruct the
people's
access to public information.
7. The Federal Government should ensure that information about
government
information is easily available and in a single index accessible
in a
variety
of formats.
8. The Federal Government should guarantee the public's access
to
public
information, regardless of where they live and work, through
national
networks and programs like the Depository Library Program.
Nation of Opportunity Principles of Government Information and
Services
US Adivisory Council on the National Information
Infrastructure
January 1996
Government information, including records of the actions of
government,
should be conveniently accessible to all persons, utilizing
information
infrastructure capabilities whenever feasible and appropriate.
(1)
The public should be given an opportunity to contribute
meaningfully
to
decisions affecting government information and services over
information
infrastructures. (9)
Government entities must ensure and protect the quality,
integrity, and
security of government information and services over information
infrastructures and provide appropriate preservation and
archiving of
government information to ensure continued useability and
availability. (6)
Government should safeguard the privacy of persons about whom
information
exists in government records, as well as persons who use or
request
government information. (7)
Government should encourage the widest possible cost effective
dissemination
of government information in wide diversity of formats and
sources.
(4)
Government should encourage the private sector to take the lead
in
providing
value-added information and services over information
infrastructures.
(5)
The Federal Government should not charge for making its
information
available
on the Information Superhighway nor charge for access the that
information.
Hard copy material, when available, should continue to be
distributed
under
existing practices. (3)
Government services should be accessible to all persons eligible
for
such
services, utilizing information infratstructure capabilities
wherever
feasible and appropriate. (2)
Government employees, and ideally all individuals, should be
educated
and
trained regarding their rights and responsibilities under
existing
information laws. (8)
Principles for Federal Government Information
GPO Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful
Transition to a
More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program
29 March 1996
Principle 1: The public has the right of access to government
information.
Principle 2: Government has an obligation to disseminate and
provide
broad
public access to its information.
Principle 3: Government has an obligation to guarantee the
authenticity
and
integrity of its information.
Principle 4: Government has an obligation to preserve its
information.
Principle 5: Government information created or complied by
government
employees or at government expense should remain in the public
domain.
Exhibit 1:
Federal Depository Library Program:
Information Dissemination and Access Strategic Plan,
FY 1996 - FY 2001
Exhibit 1
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM: Information
Dissemination
and Access
Strategic Plan, FY 1996 - FY 2001
Prepared For
STUDY TO IDENTIFY MEASURES NECESSARY
FOR A SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION TO A MORE ELECTRONIC
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY
LIBRARY PROGRAM
As Required By
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996
Public Law 10453
June 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary E-i
Principles for Federal Government Information E-iii
Mission and Goals for the Federal Depository Library Program E-iv
Basic Assumptions for the Information Dissemination and Access
Strategic Plan E-v
Definitions E-vi
I. Background E-1
II. Approach to Electronic Dissemination and Access E-2
Major Transition Activities E-2
Assessment of Standards for Creation and Dissemination of
Electronic
Government Information Products E-3
Government Information Products in the FDLP E-4
Incorporating Government Information Products in the FDLP E-4
Role of the GPO Access Service E-5
Making New Information Available through the FDLP E-5
Reducing Duplication of Product Content E-6
Cataloging and Locator Services E-6
Permanent Access Services E-7
Legal Changes Which Support the Transition E-8
III. Depository Library Roles and Service Expectations E-8
Strengthening the Federal Depository Library Program E-8
Role of Regional and Selective Depository Libraries E-8
Depository Library Service Expectations E-9
Technology Grants E-10
Training Efforts and Regional Librarians' Conference E-10
New Focus for the Inspection Program E-10
Access to Electronic Government Information Products through
Public
Libraries E-11
IV. Administrative and Support Activities E-11
Superintendent of Documents Classification System E-11
Notification of Electronic Government Information Products in
the FDLP E-12
Use of Item Numbers for Electronic Government Information
Products
E-12
Future Distribution of Tangible Government Information Products
E-12
V. Impact of this Plan on other SOD Programs E-12
By-Law Distribution Program E-13
International Exchange System Program E-13
Sales of Publications Program E-14
List of Appendices E-15
Appendix A: Paper Titles in the FDLP - Core List E-17
Appendix B: FDLP System Requirements for Electronic Access E-19
Appendix C: Transition Chronology E-21
Appendix D: Incorporating Agency Information Products in the FDLP
E-25
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM:
Information Dissemination and Access
Strategic Plan, FY 1996 - FY 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Strategic Plan focuses on the role of the Government
Printing
Office (GPO), as the administrator of the Federal Depository
Library
Program (FDLP), and the changes in the FDLP that will occur
during
the period from the remainder of FY 1996 through the end of FY
2001. Because it is such an integral part of the FDLP, the plan
also addresses the Cataloging and Indexing Program./1/ This plan
is one component of the report to Congress entitled Study to
Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More
Electronic Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP Study
Report),/2/ and it is included as an Exhibit in that report.
/1/ Other SOD programs have been considered briefly within the
context of this plan with
the conclusion that changes in the transition to a more
electronic FDLP
will have less
dramatic effects on the By-Law Distribution Program, the
International
Exchange
System (IES) Program and the Sales of Publications Program.
Additional evaluation
and planning will be needed to determine the impact of changes in
agency publishing
practices on these programs, but that is not within the scope of
this
plan.
/2/ In August 1995, the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO),
as
required by the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104-53),
initiated a
cooperative study to identify measures necessary for a successful
transition to a more
electronic Federal Depository Library Program. Congress directed
that
the study
include a strategic plan that could assist the Congress in
redefining a
new and
strengthened Federal information dissemination policy and
program.
The study
concluded in March 1996, and a draft report was issued in order
to
provide an extended
opportunity for public comment. The final report, including this
Strategic Plan, was
issued in June 1996.
By emphasizing the incorporation of electronic information
products
into the FDLP, this plan affirmatively moves the FDLP toward a
more electronic information dissemination and access program.
While this plan builds upon the December 1995 Electronic
Federal
Depository Library Program: Transition Plan FY 1996 - FY
1998,
submitted with the GPO FY 1997 appropriations request, it
incorporates
numerous changes which reflect the views and advice of the
library
community, Federal publishing agencies, and users of Government
information.
The FDLP provides official Government information products in
a variety of formats to the nation's over 1,380 depository
libraries.
The FDLP endeavors to ensure that all Government information
products
within the scope of the program are available for no fee public
access. Incorporating more electronic Government information into
the FDLP will augment the traditional distribution of tangible
products with connections to remotely accessible Government
electronic
information services. Electronic information will be accessible
to the public at or through depository libraries from a
distributed
system, administered by GPO, of Government electronic information
services from other Government agencies, or from institutions
acting as agents for the Government. The preferred method for
incorporating additional electronic information into the FDLP
will be to point and link to the electronic information services
of other agencies. When this is not possible, GPO will obtain
electronic source files from agencies for mounting on GPO
Access.
Tangible Government information products will continue to be
distributed
to libraries, including CD-ROM discs, diskettes, paper or
microfiche,
as appropriate to the needs of users and the intended usage.
Permanent access to Government information products is a critical
issue in the electronic environment. GPO, as the administrator
of the FDLP, will coordinate a distributed system that provides
continuous, permanent public access to Government information
products within the scope of the program, in the same spirit in
which regional depository libraries provide permanent access to
tangible information products. This will require coordination
with all of the institutional program stakeholders: information
producing agencies, GPO, depository libraries and the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Effective public use of Government information, especially in
the less-structured environment of the Internet, depends on the
users' ability to identify and locate desired information.
Through
the continuation of its cataloging services, and the development
of the suite of Pathway locator services, GPO can meet this need.
Use of electronic Government information products also can be
enhanced by the greater utilization of standards in the creation
and dissemination of information. Therefore, GPO is proposing
an Assessment of Standards for Creation and Dissemination of
Electronic
Government Information through a joint effort with the National
Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS).
Following successful completion of the assessment, GPO will
survey
depository libraries to assess the technological capabilities
of both libraries and the public to access and utilize Government
information products in the electronic formats identified by the
assessment. The survey also will determine the technological
skills
of depository staff, equipment already available in depository
libraries, and the cost implications for depository libraries
and users in accessing and utilizing Government information
products
provided through the FDLP.
Significant progress toward a more electronic FDLP can be made
by the end of FY 1998 with essentially flat funding. For the out
years, FY 1999 and beyond, there are too many variables involved
to accurately project program funding requirements at this time.
GPO's FY 1997 funding request of $30.8 million for the
Superintendent
of Documents (SOD) Salaries and Expense Appropriation assumed
that some FDLP expenses, especially those associated with
acquiring
and shipping tangible products, would decline as the use of
electronic
information dissemination technologies increases. However, there
will be offsetting cost increases in other areas, such as
expanding
the capacity of the GPO Access service, acquiring and
converting
electronic source files, CD-ROM software licensing fees, etc.
An effective transition to a more electronic FDLP would be
facilitated
by certain changes to existing law. Recommendations for
legislative
changes to 44 U.S.C. Chapter 19 are included in the FDLP Study
Report in the report for Task 6 (Attachment D-5).
Also included in this plan is a brief discussion of the changing
roles of regional and selective depository libraries with respect
to electronic Government information products, and the type and
level of public service and access that depository libraries will
be required to provide in the future.
PRINCIPLES FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
GPO's tactical and strategic planning for the future of the FDLP,
as well as the work on the FDLP Study, have been guided by a set
of fundamental principles regarding Federal Government
information.
1. The Public Has the Right of Access to Government
Information
Access to Government information, except where restricted by law,
is a basic right of every American citizen. Open and unrestricted
access to Government information ensures that the public has the
opportunity to monitor and participate in the full range of
Government
activities.
2. The Government Has an Obligation to Disseminate and Provide
Broad Public Access to its Information
The Government should encourage public participation in the
democratic
process and use of Government information through proactive
dissemination
efforts that ensure timely and equitable public access.
3. The Government Has an Obligation to Guarantee the
Authenticity
and Integrity of Its Information
These obligations, which are met in well-established ways in the
print world, pose difficult issues in the electronic information
environment.
4. The Government Has an Obligation to Preserve its
Information
Preservation and permanent public access are vital components
of the national historical record. Preservation should be
considered
from the earliest stages of the information life cycle.
5. Government Information Created or Compiled by Government
Employees or at Government Expense Should Remain in the Public
Domain
Use or reuse of Government information should not be diminished
by copyrightlike restrictions, which serve to reduce the economic
benefits or "multiplier effects" associated with
unrestricted
usage.
MISSION AND GOALS FOR THE FEDERAL DEPOSITORY
LIBRARY PROGRAM
Within these broad principles, the FDLP Study has identified the
mission and goals for the FDLP. This Strategic Plan incorporates
several different efforts and approaches to achieving these
goals.
FDLP Mission
The mission of the Federal Depository Library Program is to
provide
equitable, efficient, timely, and dependable nofee public access
to Federal Government information within the scope of the
program.
FDLP Goals
1. Ensure that the public has equitable, no fee, local public
access to Government information products through a centrally
managed, statutorily authorized network of geographically
dispersed
depository libraries.
2. Use new information technologies to improve public access to
Government information and expand the array of Government
information
products and Government electronic information services made
available
through the FDLP.
3. Provide Government information products in formats appropriate
to the needs of users and the intended usage.
4. Enable the public to locate Government information regardless
of format.
5. Ensure both timely, current public access and permanent,
future
public access to Government information products at or through
depository libraries, without copyright-like restrictions on the
use or reuse of that information.
6. Facilitate preservation of Government information through the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
7. Ensure that the program is costeffective for all parties
involved,
including Government publishing agencies, GPO, depository
libraries,
and the public.
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE INFORMATION
DISSEMINATION AND ACCESS
STRATEGIC PLAN
1. An increasing proportion of the Government information
products
provided to the public through the FDLP will utilize electronic
information dissemination and access technologies.
2. Electronic information will become the preferred medium for
dissemination of, and access to, Government information products
through the FDLP, although distribution of paper or microfiche
will continue when appropriate for users or intended usage.
3. Including electronic Government information products in the
FDLP offers opportunities to make more information locally
available
to the public, with enhanced functionality.
4. An enhanced system is needed to ensure permanent public access
to electronic Government information products through the FDLP.
Such a system must include all of the institutional program
stakeholders:
information producing agencies, GPO, depository libraries and
NARA.
5. The GPO Access services authorized by Public Law 103-40
are the foundation for providing electronic access to Government
information through the FDLP.
6. An enhanced system is needed to ensure the persistent
identification
and description of Government information products available via
Government electronic information services.
7. Direct, no fee access to Government information products will
be provided to the public through the GPO Access services
as a function of the FDLP, and will be funded by the program.
8. When an agency is required by law to charge for access to its
electronic Government information service in order to recover
costs, GPO will seek to reimburse the agency for access to its
electronic information products at no cost to depository
libraries.
9. Some depository libraries need financial assistance in order
to serve the public in an electronic FDLP environment. GPO has
requested $500,000 for "technology grants" in FY 1997
to provide such assistance.
10. Certain legislative changes to 44 U.S.C. Chapter 19 would
facilitate this transition. These are identified in the FDLP
Study
Report in the report for Task 6 (Attachment D-5).
11. This transition requires funding the Superintendent of
Documents
Salaries and Expenses (S&E) appropriation at approximately
the FY 1996 level through FY 1998. Any cost increases associated
with expanding the role of electronic Government information in
the FDLP will be funded by reducing distribution of paper and
microfiche.
DEFINITIONS
The following definitions are provided to clarify the meaning
of several important words and phrases as used in this
report.
Unless otherwise noted, in this plan "Government"
always refers to the Government of the United States.
"Agency" means any Federal Government
department,
including any military department, independent regulatory agency,
Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or
other establishment in the executive, legislative, or judicial
branch.
"Depository library" means a library, designated
under the provisions of 44 U.S.C. Chapter 19, which maintains
tangible Government information products for use by the general
public, offers professional assistance in locating and using
Government
information, and provides local capability for the general public
to access Government electronic information services.
The "Federal Depository Library Program" is a
nationwide geographically-dispersed system, established under
the provisions of 44 U.S.C. Chapter 19 and administered by the
Superintendent of Documents, consisting of libraries acting in
partnership with the United States Government for the purpose
of enabling the general public to have local access to Federal
Government information at no cost.
"Government electronic information service"
means
the system or method by which an agency or its authorized agent
provides public access to Government information products via
a telecommunications network.
"Government information" means Government
publications,
or other Government information products, regardless of form or
format, created or compiled by employees of a Government agency,
or at Government expense, or as required by law./3/
/3/ "Government information" has a significantly
broader meaning in the context of
Federal records.
"Government information product" means a
discrete
set of Government information, either conveyed in a tangible
physical
format including electronic media, or made publicly accessible
via a Government electronic information service.
"Migration" means both: (1) the periodic
refreshing
or transfer of Government information products from one medium
to another in order to minimize loss of information due to
physical
deterioration of storage media and (2) the reformatting of
information
to avoid technological obsolescence due to software or platform
dependence.
"Permanent access" means that Government
information
products within the scope of the FDLP remain available for
continuous,
no fee public access through the program./4/ For emphasis, the
phrase
"permanent public access" is sometimes used with
the same definition.
/4/ Permanent access is required by 44 U.S.C. §1911:
"Depository libraries not served
by a regional depository library, or that are regional depository
libraries
themselves,
shall retain Government publications permanently in either
printed
form or in
microfacsimile form, except superseded publications or those
issued
later in bound
form..." In the case of tangible information products,
permanent
access remains a
responsibility of regional depository libraries, while in the
case of
remotely accessible
Government information products, it is a responsibility of GPO to
coordinate a
distributed system that provides continuous, permanent public
access.
"Preservation" means that official records of
the Federal Government, including Government information products
made available through the FDLP, which have been determined to
have sufficient historical or other value to warrant being held
and maintained in trust for future generations of Americans, are
retained by the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA).
FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM:
Information Dissemination and Access
Strategic Plan, FY 1996 - FY 2001
I. BACKGROUND
This Strategic Plan focuses on the role of the Government
Printing
Office (GPO), as the administrator of the Federal Depository
Library
Program (FDLP), and the changes in the FDLP that will occur
during
the period from the remainder of FY 1996 through the end of FY
2001. Because it is such an integral part of the FDLP, the plan
also addresses the Cataloging and Indexing Program./1/ This plan
is one component of the report to Congress entitled Study to
Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More
Electronic Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP Study
Report),/2/ and it is included as an Exhibit in that report.
/1/ Other SOD programs have been considered briefly within the
context of this plan with
the conclusion that changes in the transition to a more
electronic FDLP
will have
minimal effect on other SOD programs, i.e., the By-Law
Distribution
Program, the
International Exchange System (IES) Program and the Sales of
Publications Program.
These programs need additional evaluation and planning for the
impact
of changes in
agency publishing practices, but that is not within the scope of
this
plan.
/2/ In August, 1995, the U.S. Government Printing Office
(GPO), as
required by the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104-53),
initiated a
cooperative study to identify measures necessary for a successful
transition to a more
electronic Federal Depository Library Program. Congress directed
that
the study
include a strategic plan that could assist the Congress in
redefining a
new and
strengthened Federal information dissemination policy and
program.
The study was
concluded in March 1996, and a draft report was issued in order
to
provide an extended
opportunity for public comment. The final report, including this
Strategic Plan, was
issued in June 1996.
By emphasizing the incorporation of electronic information
products
into the FDLP, this Strategic Plan affirmatively moves the FDLP
toward a more electronic information dissemination and access
program. While this plan builds upon the December 1995
Electronic
Federal Depository Library Program: Transition Plan FY 1996 -
FY 1998, submitted with the GPO FY 1997 appropriations
request,
it incorporates numerous changes which reflect the views and
advice
of the library community, Federal publishing agencies, and users
of Government information.
The Superintendent of Documents (SOD) Library Programs Service
(LPS) is responsible for administering the FDLP in partnership
with over 1,380 participating libraries nationwide, as authorized
under Title 44 of the U.S. Code. There are three major areas in
which the FDLP can extend its traditional role into the
electronic
environment:
- - Provide no fee public access to all Government information
products
which fall within the scope of the FDLP.
- - Through cataloging and locator services, enable the public
to
access the full range of Federal Government information made
available
through the program.
- - Ensure that FDLP Government information products are
maintained
permanently for public access.
These are not new directions; they have been the cornerstones
of the FDLP for many years. However, as the program changes from
the delivery of mostly print products to incorporate more
electronic information dissemination and access, all of the
program
partners are faced with new opportunities and challenges to their
abilities to accomplish these goals in a very different and
rapidly-
changing environment.
The FDLP strives to ensure that the general public has access
to a broad range of Government information maintained for a long
period of time. For print or microfiche products, this
information
is cataloged so that it can be found by potential users. It is
housed in local depository libraries which provide public access
at the community level. Professional Government information
librarians
assist individuals in locating the information they need. The
costs to depository libraries have been estimated at three to
five times the dollar value of the information products that they
receive./3/ The FDLP exemplifies how a Federal program utilizing
state and local support can serve the public through shared
responsibilities
and shared costs.
/3/ Robert E. Dugan and Ellen M. Dodsworth, "Costing Out
a
Depository Library: What
Free Government Information?" Government Information
Quarterly, Volume 11,
Number 3 (1994), pages 261-284.
Electronic information dissemination via the Internet, on CD-ROM
discs, or using successor technologies, offers potential
economies
for the Government as a whole. However, the greatest savings will
accrue to those agencies which embrace publishing via the
Internet.
As the initial publishing costs to Government decline, the costs
to libraries and the public for computers, training, and
connections,
as well as costs to the Government for providing permanent access
may increase. Similarly, local printing of on demand copies,
often
using costly and environmentally unfriendly technologies, will
mean that users who want their own copies may pay more than when
costs were kept in check by GPO's efficient and effective
printing
procurement process.
In addition, depository librarians will be acting in new roles,
serving as intermediaries helping the public find Federal
electronic
information and providing access to that information on site and
via electronic gateways. Depository libraries also will continue
to select, receive, and service tangible Government information
products while expanding their capability to handle electronic
information. Many depository libraries must upgrade their
capabilities
in order to serve the public effectively in a more electronic
FDLP, and this affects the speed at which a successful transition
can occur. The transition to a more electronic FDLP must not
result
in disenfranchising portions of the public which need more time
to adapt to the new technologies.
II. APPROACH TO ELECTRONIC DISSEMINATION AND
ACCESS
Major Transition Activities
Implementation of this plan will be accomplished utilizing a
project
approach. Major project areas and goals for near-term transition
implementation include:
Information Dissemination Services
Goal: To incorporate in the FDLP Government information products
available via Federal agency Internet sites and increase the
array
of products disseminated to depository libraries and the general
public via GPO Access.
Cataloging and Locator Services
Goal: To provide locator services to direct depository libraries
and the general public to Government information products
available
via Government electronic information services, including
development
of the suite of Pathway indexer and Browse functions.
Permanent Access Services
Goal: To establish a distributed system for ensuring that
Government
information products available via Government electronic
information
services are maintained permanently for public access through
the FDLP.
Depository Roles and Services
Goal: To support and monitor depository library services, with
a view toward improving the public's ability to access all
Government
information through the FDLP.
Assessment of Standards for Creation and Dissemination of
Electronic
Government Information Products
In addition, GPO is proposing an Assessment of Standards for
Creation
and Dissemination of Electronic Government Information Products
through a joint effort with the National Commission on Libraries
and Information Science (NCLIS). For the successful
implementation
of a more electronic FDLP, the Congress, GPO and the depository
library community must have additional information about future
agency publishing plans, as well as an expert evaluation of the
cost-effectiveness and usefulness of various electronic formats
that may be utilized for depository library dissemination or
access.
A central implementation issue is the identification and
utilization
of standards for creation and dissemination of electronic
Government
information products. These standards would enhance access to
and use of Government information by both the Government and the
public. The Government produces an enormous quantity and variety
of information. The standards best suited for one type of data
may be substantially less suited, or even entirely inappropriate,
for another. Consequently, there is no single standard in which
all Government information products can, or should, be created
or disseminated. Nevertheless, it is in the best interest of the
Government, and those who use Government information, to achieve
a greater degree of standardization than now exists, and to
develop
recommended standards for each major type of Government
information
product in order to facilitate the exchange and use of that
information.
To accomplish this, it is first necessary to know the range of
formats Federal agencies currently use in the creation and
dissemination
of information and to assess the de facto or actual standards
that are in use for each major type of data. It is also necessary
to identify areas where there is no standardization, or such
limited
standardization that the effect is virtually the same. Finally,
it would be useful to evaluate standards utilized by private
sector
and other non-governmental publishers. This information will
provide
the basis for an assessment, in consultation with the depository
library community, of the usefulness and costeffectiveness of
various electronic formats for depository library dissemination
or access. It will also be the basis for a dialog with the
National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the National
Commission
on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS), the National
Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST), and others with an interest
in establishing and promulgating Government-wide standards for
information creation and dissemination.
As an independent Federal agency established to advise the
President
and the Congress on national policies related to library and
information
services adequate to meet the needs of the people of the United
States, NCLIS is uniquely situated to coordinate this activity
and assist GPO in the evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and
usefulness of various electronic formats that may be utilized
for depository library dissemination or access. This assessment
of standards will be a first step toward the ultimate goal of
collecting and analyzing information life cycle costs, providing
data upon which to base further consultation with the library
community and discussions with publishing agencies. The
assessment
should proceed as rapidly as possible in order to assure a
successful
and cost-effective transition to a more electronic FDLP.
Government Information Products in the FDLP
The FDLP will offer Government information products in a variety
of formats and media, although for reasons of economy the choice
of multiple formats for the same content may be reduced.
Depository
information will be available in two basic types:
- - Tangible, physical Government information products,
including
paper, microfiche, and electronic deliverables such as CD-ROM
discs distributed to depository libraries. No fee public use of
these physical products will be at or through depository
libraries.
Should members of the public wish to obtain their own copies they
must purchase them as they do at the present.
- - Electronic products from Government electronic information
services,
which are remotely accessible via telecommunication networks.
In most cases, users with the requisite computer equipment and
network access will be able to use these products from their
home,
classroom, or office.
GPO's ability to provide timely and complete access to Government
information products is linked closely to the receipt of timely
notification from the publishing agencies when they initiate,
substantially modify, or terminate them. In the case of tangible
products, SOD requires timely notification to "ride"
requisitions for information products produced or procured from
sources other than GPO in order to obtain FDLP copies at the best
cost. For Government information products accessible from a
Government
electronic information service, SOD's ability to provide current
and accurate Pathway locator services is incumbent upon timely
notification by originating agencies. In addition, prior
notification
by the agency when it decides to terminate such products is
essential
to meeting the goal of ensuring permanent access to appropriate
Government information products provided through the FDLP.
Incorporating Government Information Products in the
FDLP
GPO will incorporate into the FDLP all types of Government
information
products resulting from agency publishing alternatives. These
alternatives include publishing tangible products, such as paper,
microfiche, CD-ROM, video, slides, floppy diskettes, or solely
electronic products published via a telecommunications network
and remotely accessible through a Government electronic
information
service.
There are four ways in which GPO can bring electronic Government
information products into the FDLP:
- - GPO can identify, describe and link the public to the
wealth
of distributed Government information products maintained at
Government
electronic information services for free public use.
- - GPO can establish reimbursable agreements with agencies
that
provide feebased Government electronic information services in
order to provide free public access to their information through
the FDLP.
- - GPO can "ride" agency requisitions and pay for
depository
copies of tangible electronic information products, such as
CD-ROM
discs, even if they are not produced or procured through GPO.
- - GPO can obtain from agencies electronic source files for
information
the agencies do not wish to disseminate through their own
Government
electronic information services. These files can be made
available
through the GPO Access services or disseminated to
depository
libraries in CD-ROM or other tangible format.
When an agency decides to publish a tangible information product,
SOD will attempt to obtain copies of that product for
distribution
to depository libraries. When an agency publishes an information
product on its own electronic information service, GPO will
direct
users to that product. When agencies cease to offer online public
access to an information product within the scope of the FDLP,
GPO will attempt to obtain the electronic source files in order
to provide permanent access through the FDLP.
SOD may receive such files from the originating agency, or as
a by-product of replication contracts administered by GPO.
Additional
detail on processing agency products appears in Appendix D.
Role of the GPO Access Service
The GPO Access service, with its components of the on-line
interactive service, the storage facility, the Pathway locator
services, and the Federal Bulletin Board, is the foundation which
will support FDLP access to Government electronic information
products. These products may reside on GPO's computers for direct
access or the Pathway locator services may direct users
("point")
to products from other agencies' Government electronic
information
services. All costs associated with information dissemination
via GPO Access are being funded by the FDLP.
During the strategic period (through FY 2001) several changes
are expected in the development of GPO Access. To support
permanent public access, the storage facility will be a key
component
of GPO Access. GPO supports the concept of distributed
"repositories" for electronic data, with primary
responsibility
falling to the originating agency. However, there is a need for
a coordinated program to identify and maintain electronic
Government
information products for public access when agencies no longer
intend to make their information available. There must be a joint
effort between the agencies, SOD, NARA, and depository libraries
to establish a distributed system for maintaining permanent
access
to Government information products available through the FDLP.
For the foreseeable future, GPO will continue to enhance its
World
Wide Web user interface for the GPO Access services. GPO
also will continue to provide a textonly interface for its online
databases in order to maintain compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and to assure access to users with limited
technological and communication capability.
In order to support the electronic Government information
products
being incorporated into the FDLP, LPS has developed a specific
Web page listing online electronic Government titles, arranged
by Government agency and alphabetically by title under each
agency.
This page lists and points to electronic titles on Federal
agencies'
electronic information services (Internet sites).
Making New Information Available through the FDLP
The ability to point to agency electronic information services
provides GPO with an opportunity to bring additional information
into the FDLP at relatively low cost. Historically, the FDLP has
not been funded at a level sufficient to obtain and distribute
retrospective groups of tangible Government
information products which were not previously in the program.
Now, when a Government electronic source for information not
previously
disseminated through the FDLP becomes available, there is a
practical
way to incorporate that information into the FDLP.
SOD will coordinate with other agencies for depository library
access to Government information products remotely accessible
via Government electronic information services. Preferably, such
agencies should provide unrestricted, no fee access for
depository
libraries. However, when the agency is required to recover costs,
or when no such agreement can be reached, SOD plans, funds
permitting,
to reimburse the originating agency for depository access to
information
products available via its electronic information services. In
such scenarios, SOD will not be funding direct, no fee public
access, although depository libraries may serve the public via
gateways, if permitted under the agreement with the agency.
For tangible Government information products, SOD will begin with
current information and move forward as is the current SOD
policy.
It is anticipated that funding will not be available in the
strategic
period to add large quantities of retrospective print products
to the FDLP.
Reducing Duplication of Product Content
Based on current estimates and assumptions, the transition to
a more electronic FDLP will not require major increases in
appropriations.
The funding source for the transition could be the cost savings
which accrue to SOD from phasing out paper or microfiche versions
of information which is available through the FDLP
electronically.
Redundant dissemination of content in different formats, e.g.
paper and microfiche, or microfiche and electronic, or CD-ROM
and online, will be reduced. In making the decision to eliminate
redundant versions of the same content, LPS will consider such
factors as the usability, intended audience, time sensitivity,
and costs of the various formats. Only "core" paper
titles such as those listed in Appendix A represent potential
duplicate distribution, as their content also may be available
electronically.
Cataloging and Locator Services
The Cataloging and Indexing Program, which has a broad legal
mandate
under 44 U.S.C. §1710 and §1710, will expand to
incorporate
GPO's efforts to identify, locate, and point to agency electronic
information products. LPS intends to provide records in
machine-readable
cataloging (MARC) format, following the Anglo-American
Cataloging
Rules, 2nd Edition (AACR2), for all appropriate Government
information products, whether in a tangible format or an
electronic
file accessible via a Government electronic information service.
Cataloging emphasis will continue to be on products which are
not brought under bibliographic control by another Government
agency.
GPO cataloging records which include information about electronic
Government information products available from Government
Internet
sites will include the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) data. The
URL will be displayed in the records from Monthly Catalog of
U.S. Government Publications accessible through the GPO World
Wide Web site, and will be linked to the actual electronic
information
product, so that the content can be displayed and downloaded by
users.
In addition to the Monthly Catalog on the GPO Web site,
LPS is developing a suite of Pathway locator services which
permit
multiple approaches to locating and connecting to Government
information
products on the Internet:
Product Points to
Pathway Indexer (prototype), which Individual products,
or parts of products
provides a keyword search of such as specific pages within a
product,
Government Internet sites. from a "seed list" of sites.
Browse Topics, which uses the subject Government Internet
sites.
headings from the GPO Subject
Bibliographies.
Browse Titles, a listing with interactive Government
information
products from
links to Government Information agency electronic information
services,
products on the Internet. including GPO Access.
GILS (Government Information Locator Metadata about
agency
programs or
Service) records. information resources.
The cataloging of electronic products is a major topic of
discussion
among national cataloging standards organizations. Through its
participation in cooperative cataloging efforts, GPO will work
with other institutions to implement a consistent methodology
to provide the necessary linking information for paper or
microfiche
products to a successor electronic version. Ideally, such links
will direct users forward to the new electronic edition and
backwards
to the paper or microfiche. Interactive links from bibliographic
records ("descriptive metadata") to the electronic
information
products will be provided by including the URL or other
standardized
logical location data in the records.
Historically, most agencies, with the exception of the scientific
and technical information agencies, have not cataloged their own
print information products. GPO's Cataloging and Indexing Program
has provided this service, by cataloging a broad range of
Government
information products, primarily those produced through GPO,
adhering
to standard library practices and formats. In the case of
scientific
and technical information, SOD has not duplicated, and does not
plan to duplicate, the bibliographic control efforts of those
agencies, even though their cataloging may have been created
under
different rules and standards. It is anticipated that most
agencies,
other than those in the scientific and technical community, may
not catalog their own electronic information at the discrete
product
level, whether through GILS or another mechanism. SOD plans to
work with agencies to identify such products and provide
cataloging
and locator services for electronic information products. These
services can be used by agencies, depository libraries, and the
public.
Permanent Access Services
The FDLP, through regional depository libraries, has guaranteed
permanent access to tangible Government information products.
Regional depository libraries provide for permanent access to
relatively complete collections of tangible Government
information
products dispersed throughout the country.
For remotely accessible Government electronic information
services,
a parallel mechanism is needed to ensure that this information
remains available for permanent public access. GPO, as the
administrator
of the FDLP, will coordinate a distributed system that provides
continuous, permanent public access, involving the publishing
agencies, the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA),
and regional and other depository libraries.
To the extent that electronic Government information constitutes
Federal records, as defined by NARA, each agency is responsible
for establishing a records schedule to evaluate and transfer its
records to NARA. GPO has a records schedule which provides for
transfer to NARA for preservation of all print and microform
Government
information products listed in the Monthly Catalog. There
also is a schedule that provides for the transfer to NARA for
reference purposes the CD-ROM titles listed in the Monthly
Catalog. GPO will work with NARA to expand this schedule,
so that all electronic FDLP information which is under our
custody
and control is provided to NARA, and that, to the maximum extent
possible, electronic Government information products are
transferred
to NARA in formats suitable for preservation.
Legal Changes Which Support the Transition
GPO has the necessary statutory authority to incorporate
electronic
Government information products into the FDLP. However, certain
amendments to Chapter 19 of Title 44, U.S.C., which authorizes
the FDLP, would clarify this authority and facilitate the
transition.
For example, it should be established without question that
electronic
Government information products must be included in the FDLP.
Changes also are needed to establish authority and responsibility
for the FDLP to ensure that both tangible and electronic
Government
information products are maintained permanently for depository
library and public access, and to authorize the GPO to request
that originating agencies provide electronic source files of
their
information products if they chose to no longer provide public
access to these products themselves. Some recommendations for
legislative changes, which incorporate the advice of various
program
stakeholders, are included in the FDLP Study Report as the report
for Task 6 (Attachment D-5).
III. DEPOSITORY LIBRARY ROLES AND SERVICE
EXPECTATIONS
Strengthening the Federal Depository Library
Program
GPO will reshape its relationship with depository and other
librarians
in order to strengthen the depository library system and to
advance
the goal of better serving the public. In an increasingly
electronic
environment, GPO will assume an expanded role in the provision
of support services for depository libraries and librarians.
These
system support services should better prepare depository
libraries
to serve as intermediaries providing direct services to end
users.
Such expanded services to libraries include, but are not limited
to, Pathway locator services, user support, training, and
documentation.
SOD will provide or facilitate training and user support for
depository
libraries for the GPO Access services. When SOD points
to electronic services provided by another agency, arrangements
will be sought with the originating agency to provide user
support
for depository libraries.
Role of Regional and Selective Depository Libraries
The distinction between regional and selective depository
libraries
continues to be very clear with respect to tangible Government
information products; however, the distinction is less apparent
for information products that are remotely accessible via
Government
electronic information services. Selection takes on a different
meaning in an environment where, once online, a user at a public
access workstation can access the full range of Government
electronic
information products. However, even though users may be able to
access Government electronic information products from many
different
agencies, selective depository libraries will retain the
authority
to decide which products to support, in consonance with their
overall collection development plans. Users who desire in-depth
assistance with online electronic products which fall beyond a
selective depository library's collection parameters may be
referred
to another depository library.
By October 1996, all depository libraries must be able to provide
no fee public access to online electronic Government information
products accessible via Government electronic information
services.
Selective depository libraries are expected to continue to
receive
(and to retain for 5 years) only those tangible products which
meet their local collection development policies. Regional
depository
libraries, with very rare exceptions, will continue to receive
all tangible products distributed under the auspices of the FDLP,
and will hold those products permanently.
Depository Library Service Expectations
Incorporating a significant amount of electronic information into
the FDLP will pose a significant challenge to depository
libraries.
Some depository libraries will have to accelerate their plans
to obtain
public access computer workstations, and deal with the demand
for local printing and downloading. Depository librarians will
have to serve user needs for electronic information and, at the
same time, provide access to their current and historical print
collections.
All depository libraries must have the capability to provide no
fee public access to Government electronic information products
identified in SOD Pathway locator services, without regard to
where that information resides. Fulfilling this expectation will
require depository libraries to offer users access to
workstations
with a graphical user interface, CD-ROM capability, access to
the Internet including use of the World Wide Web, and the ability
to access, download, and print extensive products. However, just
as depository libraries now may charge users for photocopying,
they also may charge users to recover the cost of printing
information
accessed electronically.
The requirement that every depository library must be capable
of providing public access to electronic FDLP information was
published in the "Guidelines for the Federal Depository
Library
Program," which were issued as "Federal Depository
Library
Manual, Supplement 2" and distributed to all depository
libraries
on February 28, 1996. Paragraph 7-8 of the "Guidelines"
states that:
Appropriate hardware and software must be provided for public
users accessing electronic information available through the
Federal
Depository Library Program (e.g. CD-ROM titles, on-line
databases,
etc.). This hardware and software should include computer work
stations capable of providing Internet access that requires
GILS-aware
software, CD-ROM readers, and printers.
This functional statement regarding electronic information access
will become a FDLP requirement
effective October 1, 1996. GPO views this as an ongoing basic
requirement for depository libraries, although the methods used
to accomplish this requirement appropriately remain local library
management decisions.
Depository libraries will continue to be responsible for the
startup
and maintenance costs associated with equipment and Internet
connectivity
required to provide access to Government information products
in electronic formats. In order to assist depository librarians
with planning the acquisition of new computer hardware and
software,
GPO published the "Recommended Minimum Specifications for
Public Access Work Stations in Federal Depository Libraries"
in the May 15, 1996, issue of Administrative Notes.
To assist libraries with the transition, GPO will continue to
monitor the technological capabilities of the depository
libraries
to provide cost-effective public access to electronic Government
information products, particularly as it relates to the standards
utilized by agencies in the creation and dissemination of
electronic
Government information products. This will include information
about the costs of equipment, software, telecommunications, staff
training and other depository library expenses for accessing and
utilizing electronic Government information products through the
FDLP.
Currently most users must pay to photocopy documents in
depository
libraries or to blow back images from microfiche if they wish
to obtain their own copies of Government information products.
Similarly, many libraries are beginning to charge for printing
from public access workstations or to obtain diskettes on which
to download and save electronic information for later use. For
this reason, GPO will begin to monitor the costs to users for
printing, downloading and similar services using depository
library
equipment.
Technology Grants
Some depository libraries lack the financial resources to acquire
the requisite computer or telecommunications resources necessary
to adequately serve the public with electronic FDLP information.
Based on a preliminary analysis of the responses to the 1995
Biennial
Survey of depository libraries, 25% of the depository libraries
do not have public access workstations connected to the Internet.
Many of these libraries are planning to offer public Internet
access within two years, but approximately 12% of the responding
libraries reported no plans to provide Internet access to the
public. The lack of Internet access for public users in
depository
libraries is a critical missing "last mile" in making
Government information products available electronically.
GPO's funding request has asked for authority to expend up to
$500,000 in FY 1997 for "technology grants" to
depository
libraries. If approved, the technology grants are intended to
ensure reasonable public access and proximity to at least one
electronically-capable depository in every Congressional
district.
These grants, at up to $25,000 each, could be earmarked for
public
access workstations and Internet connections in depository
libraries.
This one-time financial assistance would enable depository
libraries
to achieve a minimum level of capability to serve the public with
on-line electronic Government information. In order to be
eligible
for a technology grant, the depository library must demonstrate
need and stipulate that no other funding source is available for
this purpose.
Training Efforts and Regional Librarians'
Conference
SOD will devote additional resources to promoting training and
continuing education opportunities for depository librarians,
to raise the level of knowledge and skills with electronic
information
resources. This approach will guide the development of future
"Federal Depository Conferences." SOD will provide
hands-on
training in the use of the GPO Access online services,
and facilitate training on other agencies' electronic information
services.
GPO will inform agencies about issues and concerns in developing
Government information products and electronic information
services
suitable for use by the depository libraries and the general
public.
GPO will take steps to promote program leadership among the
regional
depository libraries. Closer coordination with the regional
depository
libraries and their directors should lead to a greater ability
to rely upon the regional librarians as field coordinators for
the FDLP. To this end, GPO has requested that the statutory
limitation
on travel funded by the SOD Salaries and Expenses appropriation
be raised by $20,000 in FY 1997. If this request is approved,
GPO has proposed to bring regional librarians together for a
one-time
conference, at SOD expense, for training, discussion of state
planning initiatives, and a clarification of the regional
libraries'
role in the administration of the technology grants.
New Focus for the Inspection Program
The depository library inspection program will be redesigned,
so that the resources devoted to periodic inspections can be
reallocated
to FDLP system support and related services for depository
libraries.
During the last eight years, 95% of the depository libraries
inspected
have been found in compliance with the requirements of the FDLP.
Now that the SOD-developed depository library self-study
has been adopted as an evaluation tool for use by the libraries,
the basis for inspections will be that which is specified in 44
U.S.C. §1909, which states that "the Superintendent
of Documents shall make firsthand investigation of conditions
[in depository libraries] for which need is indicated
..."
(emphasis added).
SOD will concentrate on site compliance inspections of those
libraries
which submit unsatisfactory self-studies, have major changes in
staffing or facilities, have prior records of non-compliance,
or if complaints are received from the public concerning
depository
library services. SOD personnel also will be available to visit,
consult with, and assist a depository library upon request.
During a depository library inspection, SOD will use a functional
approach to determine compliance with the requirement to provide
public access to Government electronic information. The inspector
will focus on the depository library's ability to provide public
access to electronic FDLP information. The method selected by
the depository library to meet this public access requirement
is a local determination. For example, public access to
Government
information products through Government electronic information
services may be provided either through mediated searches, or
by allowing members of the public to use depository library
workstations
on their own. In making such decisions, depository librarians
should bear in mind the "rule of thumb" that services
associated with FDLP information products should be at the same
level as those accorded to products which are purchased for the
library's collection.
Access to Electronic Government Information Products through
Public Libraries
With respect to the electronic information in the program, the
FDLP will not be an exclusive source of no fee Government
information
to depository libraries. In order to improve access to Government
information products at the local level, SOD will promote the
FDLP electronic services to public libraries. For information
delivered via a Government electronic information service, the
incremental cost of serving additional libraries or members of
the public is minimal. Through a program of outreach to public
libraries, SOD will encourage them to offer FDLP electronic
Government
information products to the public.
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
Superintendent of Documents Classification
System
GPO's Superintendent of Documents classification system is used
to assign permanent and unique identifiers to tangible Government
information products. This has enabled libraries to shelve and
provide access to their physical collections. However, the
location
requirements for Government information products that are
remotely
accessible via Government electronic information services are
not met by any current application of the Superintendent of
Documents
classification system.
A committee comprised of ALA Government Documents Round Table
(GODORT) members and LPS staff has agreed in principle to a
proposal
to apply the classification system to electronic online products.
This use of the classification system will assist in relating
electronic products to their print antecedents and allow the
title
to be processed for the various Monthly Catalog outputs,
including presentation on the GPO Web site. The application of
the Superintendent of Documents classification system to physical
products will be continued.
For electronic Government information products stored in a
digital
data repository, permanency and uniqueness can be ensured by
applying
the "persistent name" (also known as a Uniform Resource
Identifier, URI or "handle"). Over the next few years
a standard for "persistent names" should emerge, and
LPS will investigate utilizing or adapting this approach to
identify
the electronic information products available through the FDLP.
Notification of Electronic Government Information Products
in the FDLP
LPS does not intend to issue an "Electronic Products
Shipping
List" for online products available from GPO Access
or other agencies' Internet sites. Information concerning
electronic
products in the FDLP is being included in the
"Administrative
Notes Technical Supplement". A special section on the
"Browse
Titles" page on the GPO Web site also will notify depository
libraries of electronic products available from GPO Access
or from other agencies' Internet sites.
However, notification about electronic information products
should
be an interactive process. LPS appreciates the efforts of
individual
documents librarians to identify new or changing Government
Internet
products and to notify the depository community about them. This
individual initiative is an important component of bringing
additional
electronic products into the FDLP, and we encourage librarians
to direct such notices to LPS so we can consider the product for
inclusion in the FDLP. This channel will complement LPS' efforts
to have publishing agencies provide adequate notification when
they initiate, substantially modify, or terminate access to a
Government information product.
Use of Item Numbers for Electronic Government Information
Products
As previously stated, selection takes on a different meaning with
respect to electronic Government information products. Selective
depository libraries will offer access to the full range of
remotely
accessible Government information products, but will retain the
authority to decide which electronic products to support, based
on their collection development plans. In order to assist
depository
libraries in establishing profiles with vendors, so that only
selected categories of bibliographic records will be added to
their online public access catalogs (OPACs), new remotely
accessible
Government information products will be assigned item numbers.
These item numbers will represent the electronic products of an
agency. For each electronic title that has a physical antecedent
in the FDLP, the existing item number under which the tangible
form was distributed will be used.
Future Distribution of Tangible Government Information
Products
As the distribution of tangible Government information products
declines, SOD may reach the point where it is no longer
cost-effective
to maintain an in-house distribution capability. The current
distribution
system for tangible products, the LPS Lighted Bin System, relies
upon economies of scale for cost-effectiveness. SOD will
carefully
analyze the costs of Lighted Bin System maintenance, distribution
staffing, space requirements, overhead, etc., to determine the
break-even point. If that point is reached, SOD will discontinue
the in-house distribution operation, and move to contractual
shipping
arrangements for the remaining tangible products in the FDLP.
V. IMPACT OF THIS PLAN ON OTHER SOD PROGRAMS
The scope of this Strategic Plan is the Federal Depository
Library
Program, and because of its integral support role to the FDLP,
the Cataloging and Indexing Program. Other SOD programs, the
By-Law
Distribution Program, the International Exchange System (IES)
Program, and the Sales of Publications Program (Sales Program)
have been considered briefly within the context of this plan and
a statement concerning each follows. Just as with the FDLP, these
programs are experiencing the effects of changes in agency
publishing
practices causing the reduced availability of print and
microfiche
Government information products. Evaluation and planning to adapt
to these changes is needed for each program, but that is not
within
the scope of this plan.
By-Law Distribution Program
The By-Law Distribution Program is funded by the GPO Salaries
and Expenses (S&E) appropriation and provides for the
distribution
of Government information products, such as the Congressional
Serial Set, only when required by statute. The Government
information
products that are included in the program, the recipients of
those
products, and the distribution quantity and formats are all
determined
by statute, or by the direction of the Congress. Therefore, this
program is entirely independent of the FDLP and will not be
impacted
negatively by the transition to a more electronic FDLP.
International Exchange System Program
The International Exchange System (IES) Program is authorized
by 44 U.S.C. §1719, which provides for the distribution by
the SOD of "all Government publications, including the daily
and bound copies of the Congressional Record, ... to those
foreign
governments which agree, as indicated by the Library of Congress,
to send to the United States similar publications of their
governments
for delivery to the Library of Congress," with some
exceptions.
The foreign government information products received by LC
through
this exchange include critical legal and legislative materials,
ministerial reports and other publications that, in many cases,
would not be available to the Library of Congress--and thus to
Congress--by any other means.
Under this statute, SOD currently manages the acquisition and
distribution of U.S. Government information products for the IES
program on behalf of LC, and the costs of the copies sent to the
IES exchange partners are borne by the SOD Salaries and Expenses
(S&E) appropriation. The IES program distributes a subset
of the U.S. Government publications selected for the FDLP.
However,
many documents which are distributed to FDLP libraries in paper
are converted to microfiche format by SOD for distribution to
the exchange partners. Overall, this results in a significant
savings to the IES program and less storage is required at the
recipient libraries.
LC has emphasized that it is critical for the foreseeable future
to continue the availability of Government information products
in paper and microfiche for those exchange partners who have
limited
or no access to the Internet./4/ SOD understands this requirement
and will continue to review all agency printing requisitions in
order to obtain copies for the Cataloging and Indexing Program
and the IES program./5/ However, as the transition to a more
electronic
FDLP moves forward, SOD will ride fewer agency printing
requisitions
to obtain copies of printed Government information products
either
for depository distribution or to produce depository microfiche
masters. As the transition occurs, and once the FDLP is no longer
absorbing the cost of creating microfiche masters of Government
information products for its own purposes, costs to the IES
program
will rise moderately
/4/ Letter from Winston Tabb, Associate Librarian of Congress,
to
Michael F. DiMario,
Public Printer, May 24, 1996.
/5/ Federal agencies submit a Standard Form 1 (SF-1) to GPO to
requisition printing and
publication services which then are procured from commercial
firms or
produced by
GPO personnel. This includes CD-ROM development and replication
services and
other electronic publishing activities.
More critical to the future of the IES program is the fact that
agencies are terminating paper publications that previously were
selected for inclusion in both the FDLP and the IES program. In
this regard, LC has stated that "[t]o the extent that any
document
now produced in paper format ceases to appear in other than
electronic
format, that item is lost to our exchange partners and,
ultimately,
reciprocal items become lost to our collections."/6/
/6/ Ibid.
Another threat to the IES program is the increasing availability
of U.S. Government information products through free electronic
Government information services. For those exchange partners who
are able to access the Internet, the incentive to exchange their
own, usually copyrighted, publications for comparable, but
uncopyrighted,
U.S. Government information products is reduced significantly
when they can obtain the same information easily and without
charge
or reciprocal obligation.
LC and GPO should work together on a strategic plan that will
enable the IES program to adapt to changes in agency publishing
practices. The plan should also identify, and determine the costs
of, various options to maintain the viability of the IES program.
One such option, at least as an interim solution for the exchange
partners that cannot yet accept electronic Government information
products from the United States, may be for SOD to use electronic
Government information products to print or create microfiche
for IES distribution.
Sales of Publications Program
The Sales of Publications Program (Sales Program) will not be
impacted negatively by the transition to a more electronic FDLP.
The Sales Program acquires publications independently from the
FDLP. Therefore, as with the IES program, it will be affected
more by the publishing decisions of the originating agencies.
In fact, there may be additional opportunities for sales of print
format publications which are produced on demand from electronic
information sources as agencies themselves publish only
electronically.
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Paper Titles in the FDLP - Core List
Appendix B: FDLP System Requirements for Electronic Access
Appendix C: Transition Chronology
Appendix D: Incorporating Agency Information Products in the FDLP
Appendix A: Paper Titles in the FDLP--Core List
A core group of publications has been identified which must
remain
in the FDLP in paper, even if they also are published as either
tangible or remotely accessible electronic information products.
These titles contain information which is vital to the democratic
process and critical to an informed electorate. They support the
public's right to know about the essential activities of their
Government. Maintaining these titles in paper format, whether
or not they are available electronically, is essential to the
purpose of the FDLP. GPO will request funding to continue
providing
the titles listed below, and others of comparable importance that
may be identified in the future, to depository libraries in paper
format as long as they are published in paper.
I. Legislative Branch
United States Congress, Joint Committee on Printing
- - Congressional Directory
- - Congressional Record, final bound edition
(distribution
is limited to regional depository libraries, plus one depository
in each state without a regional)
- - United States Congressional Serial Set, bound
edition
(based on the recommendation of the 1994 Serial Set Study Group,
and the alternatives proposed in the report for Task 8B,
distribution
will be limited to regional depository libraries, plus one
depository
in each state without a regional)
United States Congress, Joint Economic Committee
- Economic Indicators
Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives
- United States Code
II. Judicial Branch
United States Supreme Court
- United States Reports
III. Executive Branch
Executive Office of the President
- Economic Report of the President
Office of Federal Register
- Code of Federal Regulations
- Federal Register
- List of Sections Affected (CFR)
- Public Papers of the President
- Statutes at Large
- U.S. Government Manual
Census Bureau, Dept. of Commerce
- Congressional District Atlas
- County and City Data Book
- State & Metropolitan Area Data Book
- Statistical Abstract of the U.S.
National Center for Health Statistics, Dept. of Health and Human
Services
- Vital Statistics of the U.S.
Dept. of State
- American Foreign Policy--Current Documents
- Foreign Relations of the U.S.
- Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States
- Treaties in Force
Office of Management and Budget
- Budget of the United States Government
- Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Appendix B: FDLP System Requirements for Electronic
Access
General Requirements
Electronic information for the FDLP will be prepared for
inclusion
in the GPO Access service in two basic ways: primarily,
using agency-supplied or contractor-supplied electronic source
files, and to a very limited extent, by scanning print products.
When agencies or contractors supply electronic source files in
a variety of formats, the capability is required to accept the
various file formats, and then to mount them for remote access
through GPO Access or prepare them for physical
dissemination
on a CD-ROM, or other successor technology. In order to gain the
widest cooperation from agencies, SOD will accept data in
whatever
file format the agency offers. As an incentive for agencies to
provide their data, SOD will not dictate standard file formats
to the agencies. However, whenever it is practical to do so, SOD
will convert such files to one or more of the standard file
formats
identified as being most useful and cost-effective for depository
distribution and access. For example, word processing and
PostScript
files may be distilled into Adobe Acrobat Portable Document
Format
(PDF) files. Based on a preliminary analysis, standard data
formats
for the GPO Access services are expected, in the near
term,
to be ASCII and Adobe PDF (Portable Document Format). When fully
implemented, the Open Text (GPO Access Phase II) software
will access SGML formatted files.
SOD also requires the ability to scan or accept scanned
information
for mounting on GPO Access. This will pertain primarily
to Government information products which would have been
distributed
in paper or microfiche format. Serial or series publications will
be maintained in their present format until a dependable, ongoing
supply of electronic source files is assured. Scanning, due to
the associated expense and complexity of producing an acceptable
result, is viewed as a secondary choice.
System Requirements
For FDLP information accessed electronically the system
must:
- - be capable of linking multiple users to multiple sites.
Since
FDLP users include depository libraries and the public at large,
the system should have sufficient capacity to support an
expanding
base of users connecting via Internet, telnet, or modem. Because
of resource limitations on our system, users who connect by
telnet
or modem will be able to use the SOD sites, and will be provided
with information to enable them to connect to those sites.
- - as long as technologically current, our primary focus will
be
on the GPO Web site as the point of entry, or front end, for all
of the electronic services of the FDLP.
- - support a full range of users, i.e., both depository
librarians
and the general public through the FDLP, including persons who
have less than state-of-the-art computer resources. The system
must employ appropriate technologies to ensure compliance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- - support Pathway locator services, which will assist users
in
locating remotely accessible Government information products.
- - provide daily database updates and indexing, including a
means
to let users know what is new on the system.
- - provide the means to assure that Government information
products
delivered from SOD sites are authentic and official.
- - to support searching compliant with ANSI Z39.50. Developing
a client/server system will facilitate multiple standard user
interfaces and reduce the burden on users to learn numerous
different
interfaces. The use of applications which require customized or
non-standard clients should be minimized.
- - to the greatest extent practical, offer full-text searching
of the electronic files offered on GPO Access. However,
for some publications which are "graphics intensive,"
it may be sufficient to provide non-searchable image files.
- - have a system design which minimizes life cycle costs to
SOD,
with consideration of the cost implications for libraries and
end users.
- - have the capability and flexibility to support, in the most
cost-effective manner, information of high, medium, and low-level
usage.
- - have the capability for permanent access to Government
electronic
information products with data and software migration as required
to support effective public use.
In addition, there is a potential requirement to establish, at
an SOD facility, online or nearline access to CD-ROM discs which
have been, or could be, physically distributed through the FDLP.
Before defining applications or candidate CD-ROM products for
such a service, GPO will identify, investigate and test
appropriate
technologies, and explore the costs and benefits of alternative
delivery mechanisms.
Appendix C: Transition Chronology
In order to implement this plan, which spans fiscal years 1996
through 2001, SOD will undertake the following general
activities:
By the end of FY 1996, SOD will:
- - Identify opportunities to reduce duplication of content by
offering
only an electronic format where multiple formats now are
available.
Core paper titles will continue to be distributed as long as they
are published in paper. Intended usage and user needs will be
considered in the decision process to offer only an electronic
format in the FDLP.
- - Investigate and, if necessary, develop initial standards
for
the format(s) of electronic Government information products
provided
through the FDLP. Initiate an assessment of standards for
creation
and dissemination of electronic Government information through
a joint effort with NCLIS.
- - Develop a comprehensive approach to cataloging and locating
Government information products, through library-standard
cataloging
or through Pathway locator services such as the browser, indexer,
product title list, etc.
- - Investigate technical and cost implications of scanning
products
which would have been distributed in paper or microfiche, when
the source data files are not available from the originating
agency.
- - Undertake additional outreach to Federal publishing
agencies
to improve awareness of how participation in a more electronic
FDLP can assist them in fulfilling their missions, and encourage
agencies to provide SOD with electronic source files.
- - If approval of the full FY 1997 funding request seems
probable,
develop guidelines for one-time technology grants.
- - Inform the depository library community about the
electronic
initiatives for the FDLP.
- - Attain a product mix of approximately 45% paper, 50%
microfiche,
and 5% electronic.
In FY 1997, (assuming funding at the requested
level)
SOD will:
- - Require all depository libraries to have the capability to
provide
and support public access to Government electronic information
products.
- - Enhance the suite of Pathway locator services to ensure the
fullest use of World Wide Web or successor indexing technologies
to assist librarians and the public in locating and connecting
to Government information products on agency electronic
information
services.
- - Develop an electronic mechanism for two-way FDLP
administrative
communication with the depository libraries.
- - Concentrate on obtaining electronic source files from
agencies,
either voluntarily or through a change in the statute.
- - Restructure the depository inspection program to rely more
heavily
on self-inspection.
- - Initiate application, consideration, and award of the
"needs-based"
technology grants to depository libraries.
- - Conduct a one-time "invitational" workshop for
regional
librarians.
- - Accelerate utilization of the GPO Access storage
facility
as a data "repository."
- - Reduce duplication of content by offering only an
electronic
format where multiple formats now are available. Core paper
titles
will be distributed as long as they are published in paper.
Intended
usage and user needs will be considered in the decision process
to offer only an electronic format in the FDLP.
- - Conduct testing and experimentation to identify appropriate
applications for scanning a limited number of paper products in
cases where the electronic source files are not available.
- - Identify possible candidate institutions for cooperative
arrangements
for permanent access to FDLP electronic information. Initiate
such agreements where possible.
- - Continue to monitor the technological capabilities of the
depository
libraries to provide cost-effective public access to electronic
Government information products. This will include information
about the costs of equipment, software, telecommunications, staff
training and other depository library expenses for accessing and
utilizing electronic Government information products through the
FDLP.
- - Begin to monitor the costs to users for printing,
downloading
and similar services using depository library equipment.
- - Attain a product mix of approximately 35% paper, 40%
microfiche,
and 25% electronic.
By the end of FY 1998, (assuming funding at or
near the FY 1996 level) SOD will provide about 50% of FDLP
information
electronically, by:
- - Pointing to products accessible via agency electronic
information
services;
- -Processing and mounting agency-provided electronic source
files
on GPO Access;
- - Distributing tangible electronic products, i.e. CD-ROM
discs;
- - Scanning agency print products for mounting on GPO
Access
or disseminating in tangible format as text or image files.
- - Having all depository libraries capable of serving the
public
with electronic Government information products.
- - Achieving a depository product mix of about 50% electronic,
30% paper, and 20% microfiche.
During the period from FY 1998 through FY 2001, SOD
will
move increasingly toward electronic dissemination and
access.
|