X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1-unr.1 5/02/90)
Approved-By:  LBARTOLO@KENTVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.govdoc-l
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 08:38:52 EDT
From:         Duncan Aldrich <duncan@equinox.unr.edu>
Subject:      Last Chance for OMB A-130 Comments

----------------------------Original message----------------------------

Folks:

I realize that you all feel barraged by requests to send letters regarding
the proposed revisions to OMB A-130 and to the GPO WINDO/Gateway.

The point is that if we don't speak up we won't be heard.  I enclose a
rather lengthy draft of the letter I have written to OMB concerning OMB's
proposed revisions to A-130.  This letter is longer than need be -- by which
I mean if you decide to write letters they needn't be this detailed.  One
side of one page focusing on your basic concerns is adequate.  A bottom line
is that OMB does keep track of "how many" responses they receive.

I realize that not all of you will find the time to write -- but I do
suggest that there are many of you who should find the time.

Please borrow from the below letter as an example.  However, please don't
merely copy it.  OMB will recognize and discount letters that are obvious
copies of other writer's efforts.

Comments are due to OMB next Monday, August 27.  Comments may be mailed to
the address below or may be e-mailed to   omba130@nist.gov  .

Sincerely,
duncan

  ***********************

Duncan M. Aldrich
Head, Government Publications Department
Main Library
University of Nevada, Reno
Reno, Nevada 89557-0044

(702) 784-6579
duncan@equinox.unr.edu
duncan@equinox.bitnet

  ***********************
**********************************************************************

Mr. Bruce McConnell
Chief, Information Policy Branch
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
Room 3235 New Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20503

Dear Mr. McConnell:

As a librarian working in a federal depository library I wish to express my
concerns regarding the revisions to OMB Circular A-130 that the Office of
Management and Budget proposes in the Federal Register, March 4, 1992 (56
FR 18296-18306).  As manager of the documents department in my library I am
very conscious of the great extent to which the American public uses federal
government information for personal and business reasons.  Owing to my close
work with federal information and with the public, working to assure that
appropriate federal information is distributed to the public has become one
of my primary personal objectives, both on and off the job.  Recent trends
among federal information producers to publish increasingly in electronic
formats has focused my concern on electronic publications.  I have become
extremely concerned that federal information policy assure public access to
federal information in electronic formats.  It is my personal belief that
depository libraries are the logical channel for that public access and that
federal information policies must ensure that appropriate federal electronic
publications be available through the depository library program.

>From this personal perspective I find that several statements OMB makes in
its proposed revision to Circular A-130 are positive.  I strongly agree with
OMB that the underlying purpose of depository libraries is to "provide a
mechanism for wide distribution of government information that guarantees
basic availability to the public."  Like OMB, I "support the depository
library program both as a matter of law and on its merits as a means of
informing the citizens about their government."  I also agree that "the laws
places the administration of depository libraries with GPO."  Furthermore,
I agree with OMB that the mechanism for ensuring that appropriate federal
information be disseminated to depository libraries is provided in the
requirement in 44 USC 1902 that federal agencies distribute their government
publications "to depository libraries."  I applaud OMB for clearly and
forcefully asserting these points of principle.

Where I fervently disagree with OMB is in OMB's interpretation of the
definition of a government publication (44 USC 1901) and the manner in which
OMB uses its interpretation to conclude that "it is not clear that agencies
at present have a legal obligation to make electronic information products
available to depository libraries."  I find OMB's logic convoluted and
troublesome.  My primary problem with OMB's interpretation is that OMB
focuses on the two words "single publication" in 44 USC 1901, and then uses
several other sections of Title 44 to assert that 44 USC 1901 can be
interpreted to apply only to print on paper publications.  First, I believe
that OMB is clearly misinterpreting the law in using 44 USC 1711 to refine
OMB's interpretation of 44 USC 1901.  44 USC 1711 has nothing to do with the
definition of government publication.  It simply establishes a statutory
framework for the Monthly Catalog of United States Government Publications.
Second, I would completely disagree with OMB's interpretation that the word
"print" in 44 USC 1711 refers only to print on paper.  Even before the
current electronic information revolution the word "print" applied to
formats and media other than paper.  Third, I believe that publications such
as the electronic version of OMB's Federal Register notice calling for
comment on proposed revisions to OMB A-130 are in fact single publications
within the Title 44 definition of government publication.

I am  particularly troubled that economic considerations appear to be OMB's
sole reason for excluding electronic information products in its
interpretation of 44 USC 1901.  Though OMB repeatedly states strong support
for the principle of wide distribution of federal information through the
depository libraries, it appears in reading through OMB's proposed revision
that revenue rather than principle is their primary motivation.  In most
references to the dissemination of electronic information by federal
agencies, for example, OMB pointedly cautions agencies to consider the
budgetary impact of their decisions.  I do not mean to suggest that
cautioning agencies not to break the federal budget is not an important OMB
function.  I mean rather to caution OMB from confusing its primary role,
that of managing the federal budget, with one of its other significant
roles, that of providing guidance to federal agencies regarding executive
branch information policy.  The principle of wide access to federal
information should not be compromised to cut the budget.  It is obvious in
the proposed revisions that OMB has in fact allowed its concern for the
executive branch budget unduly to influence its interpretation of 44 USC
1901.

In the proposed revision OMB does suggest to agencies that they adopt as a
matter of policy the distribution of electronic information products to the
depository libraries.  Again, OMB is asserting the principle that this
information should be available through depositories, but is using its
interpretation of 44 USC 1901 to allow agencies to avoid the principle in
favor of trimming budgets.  I reassert my opinion that federal agency
electronic publications do fall within the scope of 44 USC 1901 and for that
reason making the publications available through the depositories is a
matter of statute, not of policy. The only consideration agencies should
make regarding the costs associated with depository library distribution is
how to fund each specific information program.  OMB should encourage
agencies to build into each budget request adequate funding to support
depository library availability of each publication they initiate and
maintain rather than providing them justifications for not distributing.

In conclusion, I recommend that OMB drop from its proposed revision of A-130
its interpretation that agency electronic information is not government
publication.  Furthermore, I would suggest that OMB revise its comments
regarding agency costs for depository distribution of electronic
publications to reflect the fact that these publications are indeed
government publications and to provide guidance on how agencies might seek
funding for the products.

Sincerely,



Duncan M. Aldrich
Head, Government Publications Department
University of Nevada, Reno