Administrative Notes 

Newsletter of the Federal Depository Library Program

Vol. 20, no. 17 GP 3.16/3-2:20/17 November 15, 1999 

Biennial Survey Due December 1 

The Biennial Survey of Depository Libraries was mailed to all depositories via first-class mail on 

October 18, 1999. The survey, required by law, is being conducted online, on the Web at 

<www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/99survey.html>. 

The survey is due by December 1, 1999; however, to avoid the rush, depositories are advised to 

submit their survey responses well ahead of that date. 

George D. Barnum Appointed Electronic Collection Manager 

The Library Programs Service is pleased to announce that George D. Barnum has been appointed 

Electronic Collection Manager, effective September 27, 1999. In this newly established position 

he will assume responsibility for the creation of the Federal Depository Library Program 

Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC), a comprehensive virtual library of Federal Government 

information. His duties will include collection development and management, the establishment 

and management of external partnerships with agencies and FDLP libraries, and advising the 

Director of LPS on FDLP/EC-related matters. 

George came to GPO in July, 1997, as Expert Consultant on a temporary appointment to the 

Electronic Transition Staff. During his two years he helped to write and edit "Managing the 

FDLP Electronic Collection" the collection planning document that is guiding the creation of the 

FDLP/EC, and worked on several projects involving Government agency and FDLP partners. 

Before joining GPO, George was Head of Government Documents in the University Library of 

Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and was an adjunct faculty member in the 

School of Library and Information Science at Kent State University in Kent, Ohio, teaching 

courses in government information and archival administration. He received his M.L.S. from 

Kent State University and a B.A. in English from Cleveland State University. 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

Steven Kerchoff Appointed Electronic Transition Specialist 

The Library Programs Service is pleased to announce that Mr. Steven Kerchoff has been 

appointed as Electronic Transition Specialist, effective October 10, 1999. His responsibilities 

will include outreach and liaison activities, both with Federal publishing agencies and depository 

libraries, for the purpose of establishing partnerships to bring additional electronic products into 

the Federal Depository Library Program. 

Mr. Kerchoff comes to GPO on a one-year inter-agency detail from the Library of Congress, 

where he has worked as a FEDLINK Network Program Specialist for nine years. Mr. Kerchoff 

has also worked as a consultant for the Sri Lanka National Library Services Board under the 

auspices of the ALA/USIA Library Fellows Program. In the summer of 1993, he worked as 

reference librarian for the National Performance Review, Vice President Gore's task force on reinventing government. 

A graduate of Houghton College, Mr. Kerchoff holds the M.S. in Library Science from Catholic 

University. He has completed course work for the M.A. in Liberal Studies at Georgetown 

University. 

Upcoming FDLP Events 2000 

Spring Council Meeting

 April 10-12........................................................................Newport, RI

Interagency Depository Seminar

 May 31-June 7............................................................Washington, DC 

Regionals Meeting

 October 22...................................................................... Arlington, VA

Federal Depository Conference / Fall Council Meeting 

 October 22-25 ................................................................ Arlington, VA

2 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

SuDocs Letter: Destroy DOE CD-ROM 

September 17, 1999 

Dear Depository Librarian: 

The Library Programs Service (LPS) was apprised by the Department of Energy, Los Alamos 

National Laboratory, that the CD-ROM, The Joint DoD/DOE Munitions Technology 

Development Program, Progress Report for FY98, should not have been distributed to depository 

libraries. The Department of Energy has advised us that the CD-ROM is for internal use only. 

Descriptive information on this publication: 

Title: The Joint DoD/DOE Munitions Technology Development 

Program, Progress Report for FY98 

SuDocs #: E 1.111:M 92/V.1 

Shipping List #: 99-0062-E 

Shipping List Date: 08/19/99 

Item #: 0429-X 

I am requesting that you immediately withdraw this publication and destroy it by any means to 

prevent disclosure of its contents. Both LPS and the Los Alamos National Laboratory regret any 

inconvenience resulting from the shipment of this publication. 

Sincerely, 

FRANCIS J. BUCKLEY, JR. 

Superintendent of Documents 

3 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

Cataloging Branch Update

Remarks by Thomas A. Downing 

Chief, Cataloging Branch 

Before the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer 

Kansas City, MO 

Monday, October 18, 1999

Good morning everyone. It is a pleasure to be with you to provide an account of recent activities 

within the Cataloging Branch. This presentation will include information concerning cataloging 

operations, the new policy concerning availability records, serials cataloging, PURLs and URLs, 

our interests in OCLC’s CORC project, and the Monthly Catalog products and records. 

Cataloging Operations 

The transition to a more electronic Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) continues to 

produce a complex assortment of interrelated works in all media. At the conclusion of Fiscal 

Year 1999, approximately 29,000 works in various media were received for cataloging. 

Approximately 33,600 of these works were processed, leaving a balance of approximately 9,400 

works to be processed. Most works in the backlog are serials that remain from prior years. 

This serials backlog is related to the electronic transition. In recent years two serials catalogers 

have devoted full time and part time efforts, respectively, towards assisting with electronic 

transition related activities. Recently, we were advised by contract specialists at the Federal 

Library and Information Center Committee to set aside, for the present, a recent initiative to seek 

commercial CONSER cataloging services. 

Although this is disappointing, we are attacking this backlog in several ways. First, one serials 

cataloger is working nearly full time on backlogged materials. Second, we have just recruited a 

serials cataloger to fill a position that had been vacant for nearly three years. And third, we are 

about to institute procedural changes in which non-serials catalogers will review incoming serials 

and will check serial issues against bibliographic records to identify those issues that require a 

change to serial records. Previously, this work was done by serials catalogers. 

This change should be useful in eliminating work from the workflow that does not require the 

services of serials catalogers. We anticipate that, in many instances, work will be counted out 

soon after it has been received. We also expect that this change will free serials catalogers to 

concentrate their efforts on maintaining serials records and in creating new records, as 

appropriate. 

As in the past, most works in paper and CD-ROM and those available via the Internet are 

cataloged within one or two weeks of receipt. A backlog of approximately 145 Browse 

Electronic Titles (BET) entries remain to be cataloged. Most works in this backlog are serials. 

4 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

Production of Availability Records Ceased October 1, 1999

In response to a recommendation from the Depository Library Council during the Spring 1999 

meeting, catalogers ceased producing availability records on October 1, 1999. Previously, staff 

produced records that represented specific annual, semi-annual publications, or multi-part works. 

Based upon Council’s recommendation, catalogers now maintain, update, and create, as 

appropriate, records that represent serials irrespective of the frequency of issue. This change 

should eliminate confusion caused by the production of piece level records for serials issued 

semi-annually and less frequently but not for those issued three or more times per year. 

Application of a uniform standard for bibliographic control of all serials will be most noticeable 

in the year 2001 when all serials will be represented within the Serials Supplement, the successor 

to the Periodicals Supplement. The last issue of the Periodicals Supplement, to be published in 

the year 2000, will include only titles issued three or more times per year. 

A uniform practice for bibliographic control of serials has been established in consultation with 

the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer, the Cataloging Distribution Service of the 

Library of Congress, the Cataloging Committee of the Government Documents Round Table, 

American Library Association, and commercial tape vendors. 

Serials Cataloging 

As you know, in addition to cataloging monographs and maps, much of the work performed by 

Cataloging Branch staff concerns identification, cataloging, and authenticating serial records for 

the many serials published by Federal agencies for inclusion within the CONSER (Cooperative 

Online Serials) database. Serials publishing within the U.S. Government continues to increase as 

does the number of electronic serials available at Federal agency Web sites. 

At the present time, approximately 50% of BET entries cataloged by the Branch are serials. Our 

most recent annual report to CONSER indicates that LPS catalogers produced 613 original 

CONSER level records, authenticated 427 records, added 1040 records to the CONSER 

database, and performed 2,073 CONSER database transactions. At present, approximately 1,100 

GPO serial records contain PURLs/URLs. 

Recruitment of Serials Cataloger 

After a lengthy nation-wide recruitment effort, I am pleased to announce that Ms. Esther 

Simpson, of the University of Maryland, McKeldin Library, has recently joined our staff of four 

other full time serials catalogers. Esther will contribute to efforts to represent and provide access 

to electronic texts of the increasing number of serials that are available from agency Web sites. 

PURLs/URLs 

As of late September, approximately 3,400 Persistent Uniform Resource Locators (PURLs) have 

been assigned to electronic works available via BET and the Web Catalog application. Over the 

years, an estimated 6,000 URLs have been assigned to various resources. Long term access to 

most works is maintained via PURLs. Given our policy of transcribing the URL that provided 

5 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

effective access to the publication when a work is cataloged, many of the recently input URLs 

may, for a time, also provide access. Although URLs are input for their potential information 

value, access is maintained via PURLs. 

Cataloging Branch personnel now provide centralized access to electronic works made available 

via LPS. Personnel assign PURLs to electronic works chosen for the collection and maintain 

access by updating addresses within the LPS PURLs server. At present, we estimate that such 

efforts require approximately 30 hours per week. Reports from the library community regarding 

broken and new links are encouraged. Such information may be reported to askLPS or to 

Theodore Defosse <tdefosse@gpo.gov>. 

In addition, people who are interested in searching for links associated with a particular PURL or 

URL may do so. PURLS or URLs may be input for searching within the LPS PURLs server by 

using the PURL search form, which is now located between the Monthly Catalog application and 

List of Classes and Related Files in the tools portion of the FDLP Administration pages. 

Cataloging Branch Personnel and OCLC’s CORC Project 

I am pleased to note that Ms. Shirley Hyatt, Manager, Product Marketing Department, OCLC, 

Ms. Carolyn Kohler, Head, Government Publications, University of Iowa, and Ms. Cassandra 

Hartnett, U.S. Documents Librarian, University of Washington, will present information and 

perspectives concerning OCLC’s CORC, or Cooperative Online Resource Catalog Project, at 

10:30 a.m. tomorrow in the Phillips Room. OCLC’s CORC project is of increasing interest to 

both public services and technical services librarians. 

This project has been of interest to us from its inception. We are members of the CORC listserv 

and are involved, in an advisory capacity, in efforts of the Federal Library and Information 

Center Committee, or FLICC, to investigate the potential the CORC project may have for 

providing access to works published via the Internet. 

We understand that CORC is an OCLC research project to investigate the feasibility of 

producing brief bibliographic records to provide access to Internet related titles. We appreciate 

that OCLC has seeded the CORC database with several loads of thousands of GPO-produced 

OCLC records with PURLs and related Internet data. We continue to be the leading institution 

for cataloging Government publications published at Federal Internet sites and are pleased to 

know that additional access is provided to these works through extracted Monthly Catalog data 

in the CORC database. 

As you know, our efforts are focused on providing cataloging records for as many Federal 

publications as possible for public access within the centralized online public access catalogs 

OPACs) of as many institutions as possible. With current technologies, and the opportunities 

they present for direct online access to the texts of thousands of U.S. Government publications, 

tasks associated with this mission become increasingly important. 

Given this context, we hope that OCLC will develop CORC applications that will optimize 

opportunities for providing free permanent public online access to the Federal Depository 

Library Program’s electronic collections. Applications that would support this objective should 

6 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

provide several important options. One option would be the ability to archive electronic texts as 

an intrinsic part of creating CORC records. Another would be to select and assign persistent 

uniform resource locators, PURLs, or successor technologies to assist with assuring access. Yet 

another option would be the adoption or development of commonly recognized uniform 

cataloging standards and authority controls that would assure that CORC records meet the needs 

of library OPACs. It is clear that OCLC’s CORC project benefits from the insights and interests 

of librarians from various communities. We look forward to tomorrow’s presentations, are eager 

to hear about current and future CORC related initiatives, and hope that you will express your 

interests in how this project may evolve. With a good dialog among conference participants, it is 

possible that the CORC project may evolve in ways that are supportive of the interests of an 

increasingly electronic Federal Depository Library Program. 

Monthly Catalog Products, Tapes, and the Catalog Application 

I would like to take this opportunity to provide some explanation as to why various editions of 

the Monthly Catalog have not yet been distributed. By now, we are all weary of hearing about 

Y2K related issues. Nonetheless, Y2K has dominated much of data processing related activities 

within all of our respective institutions. Within GPO, concerns relating to compliance with Y2K 

requirements understandably assume a high priority. In this regard, I must add that this priority 

among the technical organizations that support the production of Monthly Catalog products has 

accounted for many of the delays associated with their distribution. At present, the top priority 

accorded by technical support elements of GPO to assure Y2K compliance for the Office have 

contributed to an approximate four month delay in distributing CD-ROM and paper editions of 

the Monthly Catalog. Distribution of the Congressional Serial Set Catalog also has been 

delayed. 

Fortunately, circumstances that have delayed distribution of products have not affected the 

timeliness of dissemination of Monthly Catalog records to the Cataloging Distribution Service 

(CDS) of the Library of Congress. Monthly data sets of GPO records compiled by CDS 

personnel for dissemination to vendors are made available to CDS, via FTP, from the Federal 

Bulletin Board in accordance with schedules. Similarly, records produced in OCLC are passed 

to the Web Catalog application within twenty-four hours after production. As of mid-September, 

we estimate that more than 132,000 records are available at the Catalog. Nearly 10,000 of these 

records provide hot-linked access to electronic works published at GPO and other Web sites. 

Ins and Outs of LPS Processing 

I would like to conclude this presentation by inviting you to attend a presentation on the Ins and 

Outs of LPS Processing, to be held at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, in the Crystal Room. Vicki Barber, 

Chief, Depository Distribution Division, Robin Haun-Mohamed, Chief, Depository 

Administration Branch, and I will be available to answer your questions on the internal workings 

of LPS and how they affect the products and services we provide to our FDLP community. If 

you have ever wondered how messy life can be, this is your opportunity to hear all about it. 

We really do work in a complex Library Programs Service environment that requires much 

interaction and joint problem solving. In recent years, as we continue to migrate to a more 

electronic environment, some of the more traditional distinctions that had existed between 

7 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

organizations within LPS have become increasingly indistinct. We would like to share 

information and experiences with you and expect that this program will provide good 

opportunities for an open exchange of information and ideas. 

GPO Access Update

Remarks by T.C. Evans 

Acting Director, Office of Electronic Information Dissemination 

Before the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer 

Kansas City, MO 

Monday, October 18, 1999

It is nice to have the opportunity to update you on the continuing growth and development of 

GPO Access. Because the evolution of GPO Access is happening so quickly, I never seem to be 

short of material to report. This fact is a strong testament to all of those at GPO whose relentless 

efforts to expand and improve our service provide me with this material and they deserve our 

thanks. Opportunities to add additional products and a desire to make those currently available 

better will always combine with the requirements of maintaining our ever-expanding electronic 

collection to keep these hardworking individuals occupied. 

Our users also deserve a word of thanks for their role in the development process. The value of 

their feedback cannot be overstated. It has certainly been evidenced by our selection as the first 

recipient of the AALL Public Access to Government Information Award and recent press 

praising the ease with which users can locate and access the pieces of our growing collection. 

But this by no means is an end to the changes on GPO Access. Work is already underway on 

collecting user feedback to continue the improvement process. An online user survey is 

currently available through GPO Access. The deadline for participation in this survey is 

December 15, 1999 and I hope you will take the opportunity to help us out if you have not 

already done so. We will use the results as part of our Biennial Report to Congress on the status 

of GPO Access. As of last week we had received 95 responses to the survey, with 41 coming 

from persons representing depository libraries. 

I would also like to remind you about our open forum to be held Wednesday at 10:30 a.m. in the 

New Yorker room. With Robin Haun-Mohamed’s able assistance I will preview several new 

things to get your reactions and also discuss any aspect of GPO Access that you feel needs 

adjustment. Please join us and let us know what you think. We very much want to hear what 

you have to say. 

Efforts to continue improving system performance have been very successful. Data indicates 

that the implementation of the additional bandwidth and server controller array have definitely 

provided a superior balancing of our user load and effectively distributed the workload 

8 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

throughout our resources. We will continue to monitor bandwidth utilization and load 

distribution to ensure the best possible system response based on the factors we can control. 

A comparison of congressional and other legislative resources available on GPO Access and 

other Government and non-government Web sites has recently been completed and copies of the 

results provided to Council. Seven Web sites were selected for in-depth analysis: GPO Access, 

THOMAS, House.gov, Senate.gov, Lexis-Nexis, Congressional Universe, and CQ.com. The 

comparison was based on three factors: 

 What resources they make available 

 The scope of those resources (i.e., the range of years or sessions of Congress they cover) 

 The source of those resources (i.e., whether they house their own information content or 

link to other Web sites for it) 

Findings from the resulting report indicate that GPO Access fares quite well by comparison to 

these other sites. The strength of GPO Access lies in its breadth of online legislative resources, 

all of which it houses on its own servers. Of the 22 resources in the comparison, GPO Access 

provides 19, and it offers four resources that are not on any of the other Web sites in the analysis; 

its closest "competitor" is Lexis-Nexis, with 15 resources. However, GPO Access is not as 

strong in its scope of these resources; its coverage--strictly in terms of years--is greater than or 

equal to the coverage on the other Web sites for only eight of the 22 resources. Many of the 

noted differences between GPO Access and the other Web sites stem from GPO Access' mandate 

to provide free public access to authoritative electronic Government information from all three 

branches of the Federal Government. 

We have also spent a considerable amount of time examining usage and the ways in which we 

measure GPO Access usage. The system changes necessary to improve performance and 

accommodate the growth of information forced us to change the way in which we capture the 

number of documents downloaded each month. As a result, an improved interim process for 

fully capturing all downloads from GPO Access has been implemented. A more programmatic 

method to accomplish this task is being explored. 

Since the new method was employed in February, an average of over 21 million downloads per 

month have been recorded. Based on FY 99 data, this impressive figure is growing by almost 

400,000 downloads per month. At our average of approximately 44,000 bytes per document 

downloaded, this means that an average of 924 Terabytes of information are downloaded from 

GPO Access each month. Or on a daily basis it averages out to almost 700,000 documents and 

more than 30 Terabytes of data. 

GPO Access now contains more than 101,000 electronic titles and points to more than 59,000 

others. This represents a growth rate of almost 25% for the fiscal year that just ended. There are 

over 1,300 databases available on GPO Access, which is also a significant increase over the 

same time last year. 

9 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

An analysis of individual page use on the Web site indicates that, as time goes on, fewer users 

are starting at the GPO Access home page, as it has fallen to fourth in popularity. Many users 

appear to be bookmarking pages for specific applications and returning directly to those pages in 

the future. The Federal Register application is the most popular starting point, followed by the 

page that allows multiple databases to be searched at the same time. In third place we find the 

page that allows users to browse that day’s table of contents for the Federal Register. Our 

redesigned online bookstore has been rising in popularity as a starting point ever since the new 

page was released in April. Appearing in the top ten initially at number nine, it has subsequently 

risen to number seven. 

Since the Code of Federal Regulations is far and away the numerical leader in documents 

downloaded, it is somewhat surprising that none of the CFR pages show up in the top ten entry 

pages. Further examination revealed some reasons why this is the case. Browsing appears to be 

much more popular than searching and many browsers are interested in only a specific area of 

the CFR. Each of these separate areas can be individually bookmarked so that the user can 

immediately go to the section that interests them most. This spreading of entries into the CFR 

application prevents it from showing up in the reports, but it is still clearly the most popular 

application on GPO Access. 

Our analysis has also revealed a direct correlation between system usage and inquiries to the 

GPO Access User Support Team. While this evidence matches our experience, and so was not 

surprising, it should prove useful in the future since the trend indicates that we will soon need to 

add more electronic product specialists to the team. 

I have already mentioned that our redesigned Online Bookstore was receiving more traffic. This 

rising traffic is translating into increasing electronic sales. Of particular interest is the indication 

that there is a transition period that new users of this application go through. It appears that new 

users of the Online Bookstore prefer to print out their orders and mail them in rather than 

submitting them electronically. This area has grown almost 400% this year. As time goes on, 

users appear to switch to submitting their orders electronically and this area has shown growth of 

more than 120% for the year. We are working to translate what we have learned into improved 

customer service on our secure site. While encryption ensures that a user is actually dealing with 

us and that their personal and payment information is protected, improvements to the shopping 

cart and some of our topical and product lists will make the electronic shopping experience better 

for our users. 

None of this would have been possible without the dedicated efforts of GPO personnel from 

many organizations. This includes the Web Committee, the many hardworking men and women 

in Production and Documents who strive to support the demands placed upon them, and the 

many people in the user community who give of their time to help GPO Access grow. Although 

many of these individuals cannot be with us today, and most are back at the office toiling away, 

they all deserve our thanks for a job well done. 

At this point I would like to spend a few moments describing some of the recent changes to GPO 

Access. Of special note are: 

10 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

 The addition of a site search application. This long-requested improvement to GPO 

Access proved to be quite a challenge and there is much yet to do, but I am confident that 

you will find it to be a useful aid in using our service. Released this past Friday, the 

index currently includes all of the HTML pages on GPO Access and the metatags that 

GPO personnel imbedded in them to aid in searching. In time, the index will hopefully 

be expanded to include the many PDF files available through GPO Access. While the 

search does not reach down into the databases themselves, indexing the many browse 

applications such as the Federal Register table of contents has provided excellent access 

by returning results that allow clicking to the individual documents themselves. 

 Our PubScience partnership with DOE. 

 Browseable links to the Congressional Record sections containing roll-call votes. 

 The new Congressional Directory for the 106th Congress. 

 The Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, beginning with William J. 

Clinton (1997, Vol. 1). Other volumes will be added as they become available. 

 The robot exclusion has been removed for the past several weeks in a test to ensure the 

stability of the system. The test has proven successful and a plan is being implemented to 

invite the major search engines to index the GPO Access site. 

 The 1999 – 2000 edition of the U.S. Government Manual is now available. 

In addition to the improvements already described, there are some upcoming changes to GPO 

Access that bear mention. They are: 

 Deschler’s Precedents of the Unites States House of Representatives is being readied for 

release on GPO Access. 

 A Statutes at Large application is under development. 

 Work is underway to develop a Web Site for the U.S. Supreme Court that should be 

released within this Court’s term. 

 A pilot project with NARA’s Office of the Federal Register is in progress that would lead 

to a more frequently updated electronic version of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

 We are also adding Electronic Product Development Specialists to work with publishing 

agencies to bring new products to GPO Access. They will operate as a team led b

Bright, who has a long and successful record in working with agencies to create 

electronic products that have benefited all of Documents programs. 

y Mike 

r 

feedback is to this process and I hope you will take the time to participate with me in the open 

As you can tell, GPO Access is continuing its rapid evolution. I remind you how important you

11 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

forum on Wednesday, at 10:30 a.m., in the New Yorker Room. I look forward to discussing with 

you then, or at any time, the ways in which you feel that GPO Access could be improved. 

Library Programs Service 

FY 1999 Report to the Depository Library Council 

Summary 

Online electronic U.S. Government information became the most prevalent dissemination 

medium in the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) in Fiscal Year (FY) 1999. This 

continues the trends of the previous five years, and affects both program content and 

administrative functions. Since the beginning of the electronic transition, the Library Programs 

Service (LPS) has concentrated on increasing the electronic content in the program and on 

building the support mechanisms to enable depository libraries and the public to locate the 

desired electronic resources and to ensure that those resources remain permanently accessible. 

For the most part these developments have been funded from program savings resulting from 

agencies reducing the numbers of titles published in print media. Due to continuing funding 

constraints, future efforts will have to focus more on reducing duplication of formats and media 

and on containing costs.

LPS’ 1999 highlights include: 

 Online electronic content becomes the most prevalent medium in the FDLP 

 Electronic Collection Plan published; recognized as a “notable document” 

 Significant personnel changes; Electronic Collection Team established 

 Initial implementation and testing of the electronic archive 

 GPO/NCLIS Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products published 

 Biennial Survey revised and enhanced for 1999; report for 1997 published 

 Internet Service Guidelines issued 

 Y2K remediation, testing, and compliance 

Personnel Changes

Gil Baldwin was selected as Director, Library Programs Service in November 1998. He began 

his career with GPO in 1973 and since 1974 has held a variety of staff and management positions 

in LPS. From 1994-1998 he was Chief of LPS’ Library Division. He has been concentrating on 

the development of the FDLP permanent public access initiatives and other aspects of the 

transition to a more electronic FDLP. 

Sheila McGarr was appointed Chief of the Library Division in June 1999. Her new duties 

include oversight of the Depository Administration Branch, the Cataloging Branch, and the 

Depository Services Staff. She began her career at GPO in 1981. She will continue to supervise 

12 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

the depository library inspectors and organize the annual Federal Depository Conference and the 

Interagency Depository Seminar. 

Laurie Beyer Hall was appointed Supervisory Program Analyst in March 1999. Her duties in 

this new position include supporting all of LPS’ developing and legacy automated systems, 

coordinating the requirements analysis for a future integrated library system (ILS), and managing 

LPS’ budget preparation. She is responsible for directing the activities of the LPS Program 

Analysts, the Office Automation Specialist, the Electronic Transition Specialists, and network 

operations. Laurie has been with GPO in a variety of positions within LPS since 1985. 

George Barnum, who came to GPO in 1997 as an Electronic Transition Specialist, was selected 

to be LPS’ first Electronic Collection Manager (ECM), and joined LPS on a permanent basis in 

September 1999. In this new librarian position, he will establish, review, maintain and modify 

comprehensive plans to assure permanent public access to products in the FDLP Electronic 

Collection. He will work closely with the Electronic Collection Team on permanent public 

access for electronic Government information, creating partnerships between depository 

libraries, Federal agencies, information-related organizations, and GPO, as well as on managing 

the FDLP Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC). 

Judy Andrews left LPS in August 1999 for Portland (OR) State University where she assumed 

the position of regional documents librarian. She came to GPO in July 1998 from James 

Madison University in Harrisonburg, VA on a one-year appointment as an Electronic Transition 

Specialist. Her primary focus was on the FDLP/EC. She worked to develop the Electronic 

Collection Team that concentrated on ways to implement procedures to streamline electronic 

products into the FDLP. She managed the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) pilot 

project and worked closely with the participating libraries to launch the active phase of the 

project in January 1999 and evaluate its potential for the FDLP. 

John Tate was appointed Chief of the Acquisitions and Classification Section of the Depository 

Administration Branch (DAB) in August 1999. He will supervise acquisitions and 

Superintendent of Documents classification of products in all media for the FDLP. He began his 

career at GPO in 1974 as a classifier, and from 1985-1999 worked in the Depository Services 

Staff as the designation program specialist. 

Steve Kerchoff joined the LPS staff as an Electronic Transition Specialist for a one-year term, 

beginning in October 1999. Kerchoff, a librarian from the Library of Congress’ Federal Library 

and Information Center Committee (FLICC), will use his extensive knowledge of Federal 

libraries and information resources to assist in increasing awareness about the FDLP electronic 

information dissemination activities and in developing additional partnership opportunities with 

agencies. 

Electronic Collection Team 

In FY 1999, LPS staff concentrated on implementing the plans for the FDLP/EC, increasing 

outreach to Federal agencies and libraries, and developing the infrastructure and relationships 

that will provide permanent public access to FDLP electronic information. 

13 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

Since the publication of Managing the FDLP Electronic Collection in 1998, LPS has worked to 

identify and implement the steps that will bring the Plan's provisions into practice. A crossorganizational work group from the Depository Administration and Cataloging Branches, the 

Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services (EIDS) and others has been working to 

define the possibilities, identify the issues and develop strategies for dealing with the issues. The 

work group was successful in this endeavor and has been re-configured into an ongoing 

"Electronic Collection Team," which is examining and evaluating electronic products for 

inclusion in the Electronic Collection. While looking at these products, the team develops the 

processing procedures necessary to fully incorporate electronic resources into the FDLP. The 

Team also maintains the Pathway Locator service tools and the PURLs applications that enable 

users to access electronic titles. 

Electronic Collection Prototype Archive 

Online electronic information is the fastest-growing component of the FDLP, and a significant 

portion of the FDLP/EC consists of titles at agency sites to which the GPO Access locator tools 

point. It is GPO’s goal to assure permanent public access (PPA) to the electronic products to 

which we point and link, since by definition, pointing and linking makes those products part of 

the FDLP/EC and means that GPO has a permanent public access responsibility for them. 

Meeting our PPA commitment for the FDLP/EC requires bringing agency-disseminated Internet 

resources under GPO control, either by establishing a PPA partnership or by incorporating them 

into a digital archive. 

The FDLP/EC digital archive is a cooperative venture, shared by LPS, EIDS, and GPO’s 

Production Department. A new server and a backup initially configured with two years’ 

projected storage capacity were procured specifically for the digital archiving project. The first 

of the new servers was delivered to GPO in July, and has been configured for use as the 

prototype digital archive. Functionally, the prototype FDLP/EC archive will be populated with 

electronic source data files by FTP transfers, downloads, file captures, or other means. The 

initial set of test files consists of source data files captured by LPS staff earlier in FY 1999 in 

conjunction with processing additions to the Browse Electronic Titles service. The files will be 

accessible through a persistent naming application, and made freely accessible to public users 

through a Web interface. Users will be able to search cataloging or Pathway locator services 

record descriptions linked directly to the content described. LPS’ goal is to open the FDLP/EC 

archive for public use later in 1999. 

LPS Web Applications and Tools 

LPS and EIDS staff have been examining different audiences and events for GPO Access 

exhibits and demonstrations. Much of the new focus is on teachers, media specialists, and the K12 sector, so we decided to add features to GPO Access that are targeted specifically toward 

young people and K-12 students. Several LPS and EIDS staff have been working on the 

development of “kids’ pages” in order to make our content more understandable for young 

people. A prototype set of pages is being developed with the goal to announce it at the American 

Association of School Librarians’ Conference in November 1999. 

14 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

NRC Collection 

LPS staff worked with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to produce a cooperative plan 

to ensure public access to a finite body of NRC information that is available in microfiche. For a 

number of reasons, including budgetary constraints and their electronic transition, NRC will be 

ending the Local Public Documents Room (LPDR) program as of September 30, 1999. The goal 

of the GPO and NRC is to maintain at least one microfiche collection in a depository library in 

each state formerly served by one or more LPDRs. Eighteen libraries that housed an LPDR 

chose not to retain this collection. In August 1999, the Superintendent of Documents accepted 

the materials from these LPDR libraries into the FDLP and announced that this collection would 

remain U.S. Government property as a depository item. In letters sent to 18 regional libraries, he 

informed them that they would be receiving the collections from NRC. LPS staff has been 

working with the librarians at the 18 regionals to help with details relating to the shipment of the 

materials as well as any selective housing agreements to be worked out. 

Cataloging Operations 

Beginning October 1, GPO no longer produces records that represent specific issues of annual or 

semi-annual publications or multi-part works. Instead, GPO maintains, updates, and creates, as 

appropriate, records that represent serials irrespective of the frequency of issue. This change 

should eliminate confusion caused by the production of piece level records for serials issued 

semi-annually and less frequently. Application of a uniform standard for bibliographic control of 

all serials will be most noticeable in the year 2001, when all serials will be represented in the 

Serials Supplement (the successor to the Periodicals Supplement). The last issue of the 

Periodicals Supplement, to be published in 2000, will include only titles issued three or more 

times per year. 

A uniform practice for bibliographic control of serials has been established in consultation with 

the Depository Library Council, the Cataloging Distribution Service of the Library of Congress, 

the Cataloging Committee of the Government Documents Round Table, American Library 

Association, and commercial tape vendors. 

The transition to a more electronic FDLP has resulted in a more complex cataloging workload, 

due to the infusion of online products and the necessity to determine and describe the 

relationships among products in various media. Through August 1999, the number of titles 

processed approximately equaled the nearly 32,600 titles in various media that were received for 

cataloging. With this level of production and the new policy regarding products that would have 

previously required availability records, LPS finished FY 1999 with a cataloging backlog of 

approximately 9,450 products. Of this amount, less than 150 represent titles in the FDLP/EC. 

Most FDLP products in paper and CD-ROM and those available via the Internet are cataloged 

within one or two weeks of receipt. Our participation in the Electronic Collection Team has 

hastened the cataloging of most titles listed in Browse Electronic Titles (BET). Approximately 

50% of these titles have been cataloged as of the day they appear on the BET list. 

15 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

MoCat on the Web 

Users of the Web edition of the Catalog now have a "user-friendly" display option that includes 

selected data elements that are clearly labeled as to content. The full record, numeric MARCtagged display remains available as an option. The search screen and associated documentation 

have been enhanced. The Web edition of the Catalog consists of approximately 133,000 records 

and of that number, approximately 9,700 records contain hot links to the content described. As 

broken links in records with URLs are re-established, these works are made accessible via 

PURLs. 

Fugitive Document Activities 

LPS receives many inquiries for information on fugitive publications. The average time to 

research, request, acquire, and process fugitive publications exceeds over 2.5 hours per 

document. The Depository Administration Branch receives an average of 24 requests per month 

for true fugitive documents, tangible products not ordered or printed through GPO. LPS also 

receives many additional requests for missing issues and updates for serial titles. 

LPS staff worked with auditors from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to determine if NIH 

printed products were being supplied to GPO for distribution to the FDLP and inclusion in the 

Cataloging & Indexing Program. Since NIH has specific statutory authority exempting it from 

printing through GPO, this audit may be viewed as an example of the effect that decentralized 

printing has on fugitive documents. The Inspector General of the Department of Health and 

Human Services issued the audit report in March 1999. Of the FY 1997 printing jobs randomly 

chosen for this audit, only 22% of the titles within scope for the FDLP had actually been 

provided to GPO. Since this audit, LPS has seen a significant increase in notification and 

cooperation in obtaining NIH publications for distribution to depository libraries and for 

inclusion in the Cataloging & Indexing Program. 

Products Made Available through the FDLP 

The distribution of tangible products through the FDLP changed only slightly compared to FY 

1998. The Electronic Collection is growing rapidly; increasing to some 44% of the titles 

disseminated this year. The estimated distribution of products in the FDLP in FY 1999 is: 

Media Titles Copies % of FDLP Titles 

Online (GPO Access) 17,885 n/a 24.5 

Online (other agency sites) 14,166 n/a 19.4 

Paper (includes direct mail 

& USGS maps) 

14,513 7,054,619 19.9 

Microfiche 25,740 9,815,918 35.3 

CD-ROM 682 277,662 0.9 

Total 72,986 17,148,199

16 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

Conferences 

The 8th annual Federal Depository Library Conference and spring meeting of the Depository 

Library Council was held April 12-15, 1999 at the Holiday Inn in Bethesda, MD. There were 

more than 550 attendees and 82 speakers. Over 95% of the participants registered via the Web. 

Proceedings from the conference have been posted on the FDLP Administration Web page and 

will be available in print soon. 

DSS coordinated the weeklong 12th Annual Interagency Depository Seminar held June 2-9. 

Intended for those documents librarians with three or fewer years' experience, this seminar is 

designed as “basic training.” All-day sessions were conducted by GPO, the Patent & Trademark 

Office, and the Bureau of the Census. A number of other agencies described their electronic 

products and services during shorter sessions for the remainder of the workshop. 

In July, DSS conducted a one-day workshop for 40 law librarians as part of a post-conference 

program for the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) meeting in Washington, DC. 

DSS also developed programs for the concurrent sessions for both the fall 1998 Depository 

Library Council in San Diego, CA and the fall 1999 meeting being held in Kansas City, MO. 

Self-Studies and Inspections 

At the end of FY 1999 there were 1,348 depository libraries, compared with 1,360 at the end of 

FY 1998. During the year, three libraries were added to the program and 15 relinquished their 

depository status. 

During the same period DSS conducted 100 on-site inspections of depository libraries. In 

addition, the three library inspectors prepared 252 self-study evaluations that summarized the 

strengths and weaknesses of the depository operation. There is currently a backlog of 219 selfstudies awaiting evaluation. 

The Self-Study Review Committee, consisting of volunteers from the Depository Library 

Council, librarians from regionals, a selective, a selective housing site, and Depository Services 

Staff, completed its work. The revised Self-Study of a Federal Depository Library was posted on 

the FDLP Administration Web page and will be distributed in paper in October 1999. 

Policy Guidance 

LPS issued policy guidance on three topics relevant to the collection and public use of electronic 

FDLP information: 

 FDLP Guidelines on Substituting Electronic for Tangible Versions of Depository 

Publications (May 15, 1999 issue of Administrative Notes) 

 FDLP Internet Use Policy Guidelines (January 15, 1999 issue of Administrative Notes) 

 1999 update of the Recommended Specifications for Public Access Work Stations in 

17 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

Federal Depository Libraries (June 15, 1999, Administrative Notes) 

Biennial Survey 

The draft 1999 Biennial Survey of Depository Libraries appeared in the May 15, 1999 issue of 

Administrative Notes to provide the depository library community with the opportunity to 

comment on the survey questions. The survey will be conducted via the FDLP Administration 

Web page during October and November 1999. 

LPS also compiled and, in February 1999, published a report on the Biennial Survey of 

Depository Libraries: 1997 Results. A similar report is planned for future Biennial Surveys. 

Other Publications 

Two editions of the Federal Depository Library Directory, one dated February 1999 and the 

other August 1999, were printed and distributed to all depositories, GPO Bookstores, etc. 

Members of Congress and staff in their local offices received a copy of the February 1999 

edition. 

A new brochure promoting the FDLP, Keeping America Informed, was distributed to all 

depositories in early May. Each library received a packet of 100 brochures. Additional copies 

can be ordered at no cost. 

LPS Outreach 

In addition to our usual appearances at American Library Association conferences and 

Depository Library Council meetings, LPS spoke and made presentations concerning various 

aspects of the FDLP in a variety of venues, including: 

 Sheila McGarr conducted LPS tours for a variety of groups including FLICC, seven 

librarians from the Ukraine, and the director of the South African Library, sponsored by 

the U.S. Information Agency. 

 McGarr and Robin Haun-Mohamed spoke before the FLICC Institute for Federal Library 

Technicians on how to acquire Government information for free and for a fee. 

 Haun-Mohamed attended the Cartographic Users Advisory Council meeting in May and 

visited the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) with Vicki Barber and Jeff Axline in Denver 

to negotiate a new Interagency Agreement for map distribution. 

 Gail Snider, Cynthia Etkin and Thomas Oertel attended the March 1999 meeting of the 

Maryland, Delaware, and District of Columbia selective depositories, provided an “LPS 

Update” and answered questions. 

 Snider provided an “LPS Update” at the spring 1999 meeting of the Missouri documents 

librarians. During the AALL annual conference, she spoke on “Electronic Service 

18 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

Guidelines.” Her presentation at the GPO/AALL Workshop covered “Writing the GPO 

Self-Study” and “Promotion of the FDLP to the Community.” 

 Etkin presented “CDs in a Webbed World: Implications for Federal Depository 

Libraries” at the April 1999 Federal Depository Library Conference. In June, she 

discussed the “Impact of the Electronic Environment on Collection Development and 

Public Service” at the Interagency Depository Seminar. The topic, “Your Depository’s 

Web Presence,” was delivered at both the June Interagency Depository Seminar and the 

July AALL annual conference. 

 In October 1998, Oertel spoke before the Government Publications Librarians of New 

England on “Writing the GPO Self-Study.” At both the June Interagency Depository 

Seminar and the July AALL annual conference, he spoke on “Guidelines for Substitution 

of Electronic for Tangible Versions of Depository Publications.” His presentation before 

the GPO/AALL Workshop was entitled “Depository Inspections and Access Issues in 

Law Libraries.” 

 Gil Baldwin, Judy Andrews, George Barnum and Laurie Hall spoke to a number of 

organizations and Federal agencies, including ALA, the Department of Health and 

Human Services, the Department of Transportation, and the Federal Library and 

Information Center Committee about partnerships and the electronic collection plan. 

 Tad Downing and Sandy Morton-Schwalb serve as chairs of two FLICC working groups; 

Downing with the Personnel Working Group and Morton-Schwalb with the Education 

Working Group. 

 A number of LPS staff members worked at the GPO booth at both the ALA mid-winter 

(January) and annual meetings (June), as well as during the Computers in Libraries 

Conference in March. 

NCLIS Assessment 

In March the Assessment of Government Electronic Information Products was released by the 

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) and published by GPO. 

The report was distributed to all depositories libraries, sent to more than 75 individuals from 

Congressional committees, including the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Committee 

on Printing, Government agencies and library and information-related associations. LPS staff 

worked with the GPO Office of Congressional, Legislative and Public Affairs in producing a 

news release about the assessment. The final report makes 16 key findings and will be a useful 

tool as the FDLP continues its transition to a more electronic program. 

Year 2000 Preparations 

Several activities are underway to ensure that LPS’ computer systems and applications are Year 

2000 (Y2K) compliant. GPO’s Office of Information Resources Management has completed 

Y2K remediation and testing on our mainframe legacy systems: ACSIS (Acquisitions, 

19 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

Classification, and Shipment Information System), DDIS (Depository Distribution Information 

System), and MOCAT/SAMANTHA (Monthly Catalog publishing system). The ADDS 

(Automated Depository Distribution System, formerly known as the Lighted Bin System) uses 

proprietary hardware and software supplied by the system vendor, Engineered Systems of 

Omaha, Nebraska. ADDS software is being upgraded to meet Y2K requirements and obsolete 

hardware will be replaced before "zero day" on 1/1/2000. In addition, all LPS local applications 

and computers have been tested for Y2K compliance and necessary remediation or replacement 

is essentially complete. 

GPO, together with other Federal agencies, developed business continuity and contingency plans 

(BCCP) as required by the General Accounting Office. Each of the BCCPs addresses activities 

within one of GPO’s agency mission or core business areas. LPS’ activities fall within GPO’s 

information dissemination mission area. We have developed BCCPs for LPS’ major functional 

activities to enable us to carry on even if confronted with Y2K problems or other emergencies. 

Michael F. DiMario 

Public Printer 

Remarks Before the Conference on 

Government Information Issues in the 21st Century 

On the Foundations of Federal Public Access Policy 

Southern Illinois University 

Carbondale, Illinois 

September 17, 1999 

Good morning. I want to thank Jeanne Simon for inviting me to speak. Jeanne and I have kept 

in close touch during her tenure as Chair of the National Commission on Libraries and 

Information Science. Her advice and guidance have been very helpful to me and the GPO in our 

work with Congress, the Administration, and the library and government information 

communities. She is doing a great job as Chair of the Commission and I am very happy that the 

President appointed her for a second term. I’m sure all of us here today send a “get well” 

message to her and wish her the best of luck. 

As this conference is on “Government Information Issues in the 21st Century,” I thought it would 

be useful to go over the historical, constitutional, statutory, and administrative foundations of our 

current policy for providing access to Government information, and then comment briefly on 

how those foundations are impacted by technology and the issues it’s raising in the Information 

Age. 

20 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

Gutenberg’s Invention 

With the Year 2000 approaching, a number of retrospectives have been published about the 

events of the previous millennium. Many of these name the most significant events of the era. 

Which would you say are the most important? Nuclear energy? Columbus’s voyage to America? 

Vaccinations? The automobile? 

Life magazine is reporting that the most significant event of the past 1,000 years was Johann 

Gutenberg’s development, in 1455, of movable type. (Cited in Graphic Communications World, 

July 12, 1999.) This was not simply a means of producing ink-on-paper more economically. 

Gutenberg invented the concept of easily transferring language to a medium for widespread 

dissemination. The technologies we have today for accomplishing the same end—computers, email, online systems—are indebted to this invention. 

With movable type, printing flourished. In 1455, there were fewer than 30,000 books in the 

world, all hand-made. By 1500, there were more than 9 million. (Graphic Communications 

World.) With increased printing came the spread of ideas, and with that came the Reformation, 

the Age of Discovery, and the Enlightenment. The transmission of ideas and information 

through printing eventually ushered in the revolutionary notions of democracy and selfgovernment. During the ratification of the Constitution, William Cushing, Chief Justice of 

Massachusetts, wrote in a letter to John Adams, that “[t]he propagating of literature and 

knowledge by printing or otherwise tends to illuminate men’s minds and to establish them in 

principles of freedom...” (Letters of William Cushing and John Adams, 27 Massachusetts Law 

Quarterly 1942, p. 14, cited in David Mitchell Ivester, “The Constitutional Right to Know,” 4 

Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 1977, p. 121.) 

One of the most important results of Gutenberg’s invention was that it fundamentally altered the 

relationship of people to their governments. This change was brought about by the concept of 

providing public access to information by and about government. We consider this notion 

absolutely basic to our form of government. But what are its bases in our constitutional and 

statutory history, and what do those foundations imply for the direction of public access in the 

21st century? An examination of the roots of Federal public access policy can point to both the 

positive and troubling consequences of the use of electronic information technology from the 

standpoint of public access. 

Historical Background 

Public Access and Self-Government The foundations of the “right to know”—the right of 

public access to government information—lie in the basic principle that self-government requires 

the public to be informed of the activities of the government. All of us here this morning are 

familiar with James Madison’s famous dictum about a “popular government without popular 

information,” and that “a people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with 

the Power which knowledge gives.” (Letter from James Madison to W.T. Barry, Aug. 4, 1822, 

in The Complete Madison, S. Padover ed., 1953, p. 337, cited in Ivester, p. 123.) 

21 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

There is a requirement in the Constitution that Congress publish a journal of its proceedings. But 

some observers have argued that the right to know is inherent in the structure of self-government 

itself, and because of this, it can be assumed to be as much a part of the Articles I and II of the 

Constitution as it is the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights. (Ivester, p. 117, citing Parks, 

“The Open Government Principle: Applying the Right to Know Under the Constitution, 26 

George Washington Law Review 1957.) Thus, according to these observers, even though the 

right to know isn’t a specifically enumerated right, it doesn’t have to be. Instead, the right to 

know is deeply embedded in our system of government as established by the Constitution, 

limited only in cases where there is a compelling state interest, such as national security, privacy, 

to protect the integrity of investigations, and so on. 

Foundations of Public Access in England The roots of the principle of public access to 

government information extend directly to the early years of printing. With the development of 

movable type there was an explosive period of growth in the printing trade, leading to the 

formation in England and other countries of printing guilds. By the 17th century in England, two 

developments—a period of religious and political ferment and the proliferation of non-guild 

printers—led to a move in Parliament to license printing presses. This action was backed by the 

Stationers Guild, which sought exclusive rights to printing work, and by those in Parliament who 

opposed growth in the publishing of ideas they disagreed with. 

 

The licensure proposal was opposed by the poet John Milton, who had published a non-licensed 

tract arguing for a more liberal view of divorce—namely, his own. In the now-famous essay 

Areopagitica—published, incidentally, without a license in 1644—Milton argued, “Give me the 

liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties...” 

(John Milton, Areopagitica: A Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing, to the Parliament 

of England, 1644, cited in Ivester, p. 125.) Milton’s essay has endured through the ages as a 

classic defense of freedom of the press. 

The efforts by the Stationer’s Guild to circumscribe the activities of non-guild printers ultimately 

failed. With the growth of printing in England, both licensed and unlicensed, there was an 

expanding interest in the open discussion of governmental matters. Sounds a lot like today’s 

Internet, doesn’t it? At the same time, there was a gathering movement to gain greater access to 

governmental information, including proceedings in Parliament. This was fueled in part by the 

new interest in government and in part by the printers who were responsible for producing this 

information until Her Majesty’s Stationery Office was established in 1776. 

Colonial Experience Perhaps in reaction to the attempts to license printing in England, some of 

the early American colonists imported fairly liberalized notions of public access to government 

information and codified them into law. For example, the Massachusetts Body of Liberties, 

produced in 1641, stated that, “Every Inhabitant of the Country shall have free libertie to search 

and veewe any Rooles, Records, or Regesters of any Court or office...” (1 The Laws and 

Liberties of Massachusetts, 1641-1691, J. Cushing ed., 1976, cited in Ivester, p. 127.) 

But other colonial governments from the beginning closely watched the activities of their 

printers. Printing first reached America in 1639 when a press was established for the use of 

Harvard College. Most early printing was official crown printing—performed by “publick 

22 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

printers”—and it was closely controlled. (Government Printing Office, 100 GPO Years, 1861-

1961, GPO: Washington, 1961, p. 1.) Despite the provision for public access in Massachusetts, 

censorship was established there by 1664, and in 1671 the Governor of Virginia said: 

But, I thank God, there are no schools nor printing...for learning has brought 

disobedience, and heresy, and sects into the world; and printing has divulged them, 

and libels against the best government. God keep us from both. (GPO, p. 2, see also 

Robert E. Kling, Jr., The Government Printing Office, Praeger: New York, 1970, p. 6, 

citing The Statutes at Large, being a collection of all the laws of Virginia, from the 

first session of the legislature, in the year 1619, W. Waller, ed., New York, 1823, vol. 

2, p. 517.) 

As in England, however, the growth of printing—which produced newspapers, tracts, pamphlets, 

and other materials—spurred in the colonies a growing demand for independence of the press as 

well as access to government information. Moreover, critical examination of the government 

was gaining popular approval in the colonies. In 1735, in a case that was closely watched, 

printer John Peter Zenger won acquittal from a charge of libel brought because of his criticism of 

colonial government. The case helped solidify the argument for freedom of the press, interpreted 

broadly as the freedom not simply to print about the government, but to acquire information from 

the government to examine and debate. (see Ivester, pp. 127-28.) 

Public Access and the New Government By the time of the American Revolution, the concept 

of public access to government information was widespread throughout the colonies. The 1776 

Pennsylvania Constitution, for example, included the phrase: “The printing presses shall be free 

to every person who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the legislature, or any part of 

government.” (Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, § 35, in 3 The Federal and State 

Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws, F. Thorpe, ed., 1909, cited in Ivester, 

pp. 129-130.) 

This concept was adopted by the new national government. The Continental Congress passed a 

resolution “...that the Journals...except such parts as have been or shall be ordered to be kept 

secret, be printed...weekly...” (cited in GPO, p. 4.) This formulation was to be used repeatedly 

thereafter. Article 9 of the Articles of Confederation said, “The Congress of the United 

States...shall publish the journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof, relating 

to treaties, alliances or military operations, as, in their judgment, require secrecy...” (cited in 

Merrill Jensen, The Articles of Confederation, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1940, p. 

269.) 

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the issue of public access to government 

information was specifically discussed, and the debates were over the extent to which the 

government could impose secrecy. Many delegates held that secrecy was not objectionable 

where there was a compelling interest, such as in foreign relations or war. But in general, open 

access to government information was held to be the rule, and secrecy the exception, rather than 

the other way around. Patrick Henry said, “The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will 

be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them...” (4 Debates in 

23 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, J. Elliot, ed., 1901, p. 

170, cited in Ivester, p. 131.) 

Like the resolution of the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation, Article I, 

section 5, of the Constitution requires that “Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, 

and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in the Judgment require 

Secrecy...” 

Notice that the timing of publication had gone from “weekly” under the Continental Congress 

and “monthly” under the Articles of Confederation to “from time to time” under the 

Constitution. In forming a strong national government to replace the weak government under the 

Articles, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were more willing than their 

predecessors to accept limitations on the right to know. In fact, delegate Oliver Ellsworth of 

Connecticut objected to this clause altogether, arguing that “The legislature will not fail to 

publish their proceedings from time to time. The people will call for it, if it should be 

improperly omitted.” But in response, James Wilson of Pennsylvania said, “the people have a 

right to know what their agents are doing or have done, and it should not be in the option of the 

legislature to conceal their proceedings.” (Elliot, p. 408, cited in Ivester, p. 132.) This statement 

today places public access to government information on a firm constitutional footing. 

Public Printing at the Federal Level 

In Madison’s statement on public access, made many years after the Constitution was written, he 

talked about the necessity of “popular information” to a “popular government,” as well as need 

to have a “means of acquiring” this information. How did the early national government respond 

to the requirement that “the people have a right to know what their agents are doing or have 

done?” How did it provide the public with the “means of acquiring” government information? 

How did it enable the press and the public to stay informed of its actions? The answer to that 

question lies in the development of government printing and a system for distributing 

government documents. 

Until 1860, Congress—which then accounted for the majority of Federal printing work—

fulfilled its printing needs through available private printers, operating in much the same way as 

the earlier British Parliament and the colonial governments. But as at least one observer has 

noted, “the National Government was not well served by this arrangement.” (Harold C. Relyea, 

“Title 44, United States Code—Public Printing and Documents: A Brief Historical Overview,” 

Congressional Research Service Report No. 79-36 GOV, February 23, 1979, p. 6.) Work was 

performed sporadically, and was often left uncompleted if it was undertaken at all. There are 

many examples of incomplete or nonexistent records from the earliest Congresses: in one, 

Congress was not provided with a complete set of the statutes of the United States until 1845. 

(Relyea, p. 6.) Other observers have remarked on problems with accuracy, appearance, and 

form, which varied widely and generating continuing complaints in Congress. (Kling, p. 10.) 

Moreover, these early systems of public printing in the United States were costly and subject to 

scandals, fraud, and corruption. 

24 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

Beginning with the First Congress, printing was contracted out to the lowest bidder. After the 

Printing Act of 1819 (3 Stat. 538), the Senate and House of Representatives elected their own 

printers, and contracts were let to each based on a fixed-rate basis. Technology improvements 

soon lowered the costs of printing dramatically, and the fixed-rate system proved to be 

inordinately profitable. Congress re-established the system of low-bid contracting in 1846 (9 

Stat. 113), but it was so badly mismanaged that it proved more costly that its predecessor. The 

fixed-rate system was returned in 1852 (10 Stat. 35). 

Public outcry over abuses connected with Federal printing led Congress in 1846 (9 Stat. 113) to 

establish the Joint Committee on Printing, which was given the statutory authority to adopt 

measures “deemed necessary to remedy neglect, delay, or waste” in Government printing. This 

step toward gaining control of Federal printing was supplemented in 1852 (10 Stat. 35) with 

establishment of a single Superintendent of Public Printing, who was charged with overseeing 

the activities of printers for the House and Senate. 

But Congress wouldn’t go farther. Proposals for centralizing the Government’s printing 

capability had emerged as early as 1819, when a joint committee of Congress recommended 

establishing a “national printing office...which should execute the printing of Congress while in 

session, and that of the various departments of Government during the recess.” No action was 

taken, however. A similar idea was advanced in 1840, accompanied by an estimate that a 

centralized office would reduce Federal printing costs by half, but this proposal also failed. 

By the late 1850’s, however, Congress was willing to revisit the issue. The renewal of the fixedrate system for printing generated enormous profits for contract printers. The profits were 

converted into political contributions, which were given in exchange for preference in the award 

of printing contracts, or worse. One report found that: 

Politicians who had no practical knowledge of printing succeeded in securing the place 

of printer, and farmed out the work to practical printers at a percentage of the receipts. 

The dominant party elected the printer with a positive understanding that he would 

devote specified sums out of his profits for partisan purposes. The record shows that 

much of the printing of the executive departments was given out secretly and at 

extravagant figures. In some cases six times a fair rate was paid for certain jobs and 

the plunder thus secured was systematically distributed for partisan purposes. (Relyea, 

p. 9, citing Laurence F. Schmeckebier, The Government Printing Office: Its History, 

Activities, and Organization, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1925, p. 7.) 

A number of congressional investigations ensued, culminating in 1860 in legislation to centralize 

all Federal printing in GPO (12 Stat. 117). When it opened in 1861, GPO was directed to 

execute “the printing and binding authorized by the Senate and the House of Representatives, the 

executive and judicial departments, and the Court of Claims.” The benefits of the new office 

were realized almost immediately. In GPO’s first year of operation, the Superintendent of Public 

Printing [the precursor of the Public Printer] reported an annual savings of $60,000 over preGPO costs; in the second year, a savings of more than $200,000 was reported. Savings more 

than doubled again in the third year, to more than $580,000 by September 1863 (GPO, pp. 38-

39.) 

25 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

Further centralization of Government printing followed in the succeeding years, and in 1895 all 

Federal printing and distribution systems were consolidated in GPO with the General Printing 

Act. This Act, in the words of one observer, marked “the institutional realization of a panoply of 

reforms pertaining to public printing policy.” (Relyea, pp. 11-12.) The Act brought under GPO 

control other Federal printing plants then in existence and provided for the production of 

virtually all other Federal printing at GPO itself. 

Significantly, the Act also relocated the Office of the Superintendent of Public Documents, 

formerly at the Interior Department, within GPO, administratively completing—nearly a century 

later—the “means of acquiring” government information that Madison had envisioned. As a 

GPO official, the Superintendent was made responsible for documents sales to the public, 

cataloging and indexing Government publications, and the distribution of documents to 

depository libraries nationwide. By placing the Superintendent of Documents within GPO, 

Congress created a system that facilitated the efficient selection of publications for public 

distribution from the comprehensive body of documents printed by GPO. 

Depository Library Program 

Before the Superintendent of Documents was connected with the GPO, the early national 

government struggled with the issue of distributing government documents to the public. 

Initially, special acts were passed periodically to distribute particular documents to State 

legislatures, governors, colleges and universities incorporated in each state, and historical 

societies. (see Joint Committee on Printing, Government Depository Libraries: The Present Law 

Governing Designated Depository Libraries, Joint Committee Print, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 

GPO: Washington, 1981, pp. 3-4.) These weren’t for archival purposes, since it is clear that the 

distribution of documents to governmental as well as educational bodies was for the ongoing use 

of these institutions. In 1813, however, the 13th Congress enacted a resolution (3 Stat. 140) 

providing for distribution of documents on a regular basis to these institutions for that Congress 

and “every future Congress,” passing what was in effect America’s first Freedom of Information 

Act. 

This system of distribution, performed variously by the Librarian of Congress, the Clerk of the 

House, and the Secretary of State, remained relatively undisturbed until 1857, when the 

responsibility was transferred to the Secretary of the Interior, who was directed to distribute the 

documents to colleges, public libraries, athenaeums, literary and scientific institutions, and 

boards of trade or public associations designated by the Representatives. (11 Stat. 253; JCP, 

Government Depository Libraries, p. 4.) 

Subsequent laws required the Interior Secretary to receive, arrange, and distribute documents, to 

keep accurate statistics on the receipt and distribution of all documents, and to distribute maps 

and charts as well as books. Congress also provided Senators with the power to designate 

libraries, and the Interior Secretary was empowered to designate libraries and to remove 

depository status from libraries which weren’t “suitable” depositories. (11 Stat. 368, 379) In 

1869, the post of Superintendent of Public Documents was established within the Interior 

Department, and his distribution responsibilities were broadened to include executive branch 

documents. (15 Stat. 292; Kling, pp. 111-112.) 

26 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

Yet there were significant problems with document distribution in these early years, and until the 

1895 General Printing Act was passed, the distribution and storage of government documents 

was, in the words of an observer, a “hopelessly haphazard operation.” Here is a general 

characterization of the situation: 

Copies of documents were ordered with little regard for public or official interest. 

Of the 420 official depositories [by 1895], some were overwhelmed by mountains 

of government publications, while others received no regular distribution at all. 

Copies ordered for congressional use accumulated in Members’ offices until no 

storage space remained, at which time Senators and Representatives dispatched 

them to home libraries to crowd shelves often already jammed with other 

documents that had been obtained by direct distribution. Not wishing to offend 

Members of Congress, successive public printers stored leftover publications until 

natural deterioration solved the warehousing problem. In addition, no standard 

system for titling government documents existed. Consequently, practical 

cataloging was virtually impossible. (Kling, pp. 110-11.) 

The Printing Act was directed at resolving these problems by codifying all of the laws 

concerning the receipt, care, and distribution of government documents. Order was imposed on 

the system of documents distribution: proper storage was organized, excess distribution was 

curtailed, standardized cataloging was implemented, and duplication and waste were eliminated. 

Other major reforms followed: an act of 1913 made depository status permanent, to end the 

practice of removing depository status when redistricting occurred or a new Member was elected 

(38 Stat. 75); and in 1922 depository libraries were authorized to designate the publications they 

wished to receive, rather than receiving every government document that was produced (42 Stat. 

436). These reforms continued through the 1962 Depository Library Act and remain in effect 

today. 

Current Issues 

Following Gutenberg’s invention, the great hurdle of the 17th and 18th centuries was to gain 

acceptance of the concept of public access to government information, and to give it a 

fundamental, constitutional basis. In 19th century America, the hurdle was to design a statutory 

and administrative system that made public access a working reality. As we approach the 21st

century, the challenge that confronts us is how to preserve the principle of public access in the 

age of electronic information technologies. 

 

Continued Need for Printing With the growing use of electronics, there is the temptation to 

say that the government no longer needs a printing capability. I think this temptation should be 

resisted. Last year, GPO produced more than $650 million in printing services, sold millions of 

documents, and distributed millions more to depository libraries. (GPO Annual Report, Fiscal 

Year 1998.) Tax forms, press releases, passports, legislative documents, informational 

pamphlets and books, regulations, statutes, statistical data, and more—in printed form these 

documents continue to represent a major avenue of communication between the government and 

the public. 

27 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

Ink-on-paper today is still the most egalitarian of information formats. It is accessible, 

transportable, and economical. The increased dissemination of government information in 

electronic formats should indeed be pursued: improving our economy, sharpening our trade 

competitiveness, expanding our research and development capabilities, promoting educational 

opportunities, and a vast range of other public objectives depend on it. But protections must be 

provided for those who do not have access to computers and the other technologies necessary to 

make electronic access meaningful. If we are not careful about maintaining policies to provide 

for the efficient and equitable access of all citizens to government information, we run the risk of 

turning into a Nation of information-haves and information have-nots. 

I read the other day that white, high income Americans continue to predominate in the online 

world, according to a recently-released Commerce Department study. (Commerce Department, 

“Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide,”1999, as reported in the Washington 

Post, July 9, 1999.) Even the President has said: 

[t]here is a growing digital divide between those who have access to the digital 

economy and the Internet and those who don’t, and that divide exists along the lines of 

education, income, region, and race...If we want to unlock the potential of our 

workers, we have to close that gap. (Ibid.) 

Public spending on Internet access in libraries is making a real difference in closing this gap, yet 

the “digital divide” remains a problem. Until the gap is erased, printing remains an effective 

safeguard for ensuring that those without access to computers can still use government 

information, and for guaranteeing both the authenticity of official government information as 

well as permanence. 

Simplifying Public Access In the electronic information era, there is a strong need to provide 

systems that help people find the information they want. In recent years, in response to a variety 

of social, governmental, and economic issues, Congress has passed hundreds of laws requiring 

public disclosure. These were not the Freedom on Information Act or government-in-thesunshine laws, but statutes requiring the dissemination of information on a wide variety of 

Federal programs. Such statutes were a common feature of Federal legislation in the 1960’s and 

1970’s. 

A few years ago, while we were conducting our study on the electronic transition of the 

depository library program, the Congressional Research Service compiled a list of the various 

statutes requiring or authorizing the dissemination of Government information to the public. 

Approximately 400 statutes were identified. (Jane Bortnick Griffith and Harold Relyea, 

Congressional Research Service, “Compilation of Statutes Authorizing Dissemination of 

Government Information to the Public,” January 29, 1996.) But when you layer on top of that 

the presence of the Internet and the World Wide Web, which are now used by each of the 

Federal entities covered by those 400 statutes to perform their required dissemination functions, 

what results is a tremendously decentralized system of information dissemination. In 1997, the 

General Accounting Office identified more than 4,300 web sites in the Federal Government. 

(GAO, “Internet and Electronic Dial-Up Bulletin Boards: Information Reported by Federal 

Organizations” GAO/GGD-97-86, June 16, 1997). 

28 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

The mathematics of this situation are astounding. In fact, we now have highly disorganized and 

confusing system of public access. GPO and NTIS are about the only entities where there is 

some degree of coordination of information dissemination. Throughout the rest of the 

government, as shown by NCLIS’s recent report “Assessment of Electronic Government 

Information Products,” “responsibility for electronic publishing within agencies is decentralized, 

diffuse, and unclear,” and “there is an overall lack of Government information policy guiding 

electronic publishing, dissemination, permanent public access, or information life cycle 

management.” (“Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products,” report of the 

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science commissioned by the Government 

Printing Office, March 30, 1999.) Ominously, the report concluded that “the concept of 

permanent public access is not well understood” among Federal agencies. 

Now, a reasonable argument can be made that a democratic society is better served by multiple 

points of access to government information than by a single or limited number of resources. 

Censorship is less easily imposed in such an information environment. But providing for the 

effective coordination of government information, and reducing and eliminating the confusion 

and frustration of finding that information, shouldn’t summon up images of Big Brother, nor 

should it spell the end of multiple points of public access. As information dissemination grows 

more decentralized because of technology, the need for organizing public access to government 

information—through bibliographic services, cataloging and indexing, locator and Pathway 

services—grows stronger. Decentralization undercuts the goal of public access, and in today’s 

information-dependent economy and society, information delayed is information denied. We 

need to combat the confusion, frustration, and delays imposed by decentralization with improved 

services to help the public find what they want quickly and inexpensively. 

“Access America” We’ve been approached by the Office of Management and Budget to 

participate in the new “Access America” initiative, which was recently discussed at the annual 

American Association of Law Libraries conference in Washington, DC. There are a number of 

purported “one-stop” shops on the web for government information, and our site, GPO Access, 

tries to be one of them, although none of them really is—although some are a great deal closer to 

this ideal than others. We agree in concept with OMB’s efforts, but I wonder whether this isn’t 

simply another layer of web services which in the end will only be a temporary fix to the real 

problem of decentralized points of access. There’s a question about whether this will be a 

content-oriented site or a directory, like GILS. And I question whether the host agency for this 

undertaking—the General Services Administration—is the appropriate agency to take this on. 

To my knowledge, the only government-wide program whose express purpose is to act on the 

principle of providing effective, comprehensive, and equitable access to information produced by 

all three branches of the government is the depository library program. In this age of a multitrillion dollar government, this program performs on an annual budget of a little less than $30 

million. To tackle the problem of finding government information, why not invest in the agency 

whose mission—whose traditional and historic partnership with the library community—is to 

achieve that goal? 

Draft Legislation Recently, in response to draft legislation prepared by the Inter-Association 

Working Group in the library community, we proposed legislation that would improve upon and 

29 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

expand our authorities under chapter 41 of Title 44—the legislation that created GPO Access. 

Among other things, it contains an authorization of appropriations, in effect calling on Congress 

to make a serious funding commitment to an online information system that has been successful 

beyond all projections. While GPO Access is now one of the government’s most popular and 

heavily used websites—more than 20 million documents are downloaded each month, and nearly 

150,000 titles are available—it continues to be hamstrung by the current funding system. We 

continue to be required to fund this system out of savings achieved through the reduction in 

printed matter. A real commitment to GPO Access would enable immediate, full 

implementation of our electronic collection plan. From there we can move on to other objectives 

designed to simplify and improve public access to government information. I think that, with 

GPO Access, we have already proven that if we are given the tools, we will do the job. 

NTIS Following the Commerce Department’s recent announcement that it plans to close NTIS 

and transfer its archive function to the Library of Congress, we made a number of inquiries about 

whether this was an appropriate disposition of this function and suggested GPO as a potential 

alternative. I testified about this at a hearing earlier this week before the House Science 

Committee’s Subcommittee on Technology. This is not the first time such a consolidation has 

been proposed. A consolidation of NTIS with GPO was nearly achieved following negotiations 

with the Commerce Department in the early 1980’s, and later that decade, when the Department 

was unable to find a home for NTIS under its privatization initiative, GPO offered to take the 

agency on. 

NTIS’s 3 million-title collection—and that’s what it is, a working collection and not an 

“archive”—is a tremendously valuable resource for the public. Its shortcoming has always been 

that it was not made available to the public through depository libraries, due to the NTIS position 

that its publications are “cooperative” publications, which necessarily must be sold to be selfsustaining. Consequently, they have been exempt by law from the requirement to be distributed 

to depositories, and this collection today remains the largest source of fugitive documents in the 

government. As you know, GPO has a small pilot project with NTIS to make image files from 

some of these documents available to a limited number of libraries. Under this project, we 

reluctantly agreed to NTIS’s condition that the files not be made available for reuse or 

redissemination. A consolidation of NTIS with GPO would make all of the collection available 

for dissemination to depository libraries, with no restrictions on reuse or redissemination. It 

would eliminate the fugitive document problem almost entirely, at one stroke. We would fund 

this dissemination through GPO’s salaries and expenses appropriation for the library program, 

and we have made it clear to all that this would require an increase in our appropriation. The 

increase, however, would be fully justified by opening up the NTIS collection for the first time in 

its 50-year history to public use through the libraries. 

Transferring NTIS to GPO would also consolidate the government’s two largest publications 

sales programs. With the Commerce Department’s announcement of the NTIS closing, there has 

been a lot of discussion about the inappropriateness of the government selling its information 

products. If that were the only way the government made information available, I would agree. 

But I think that if the NTIS collection can be made available for the free use of the public 

through depository libraries, there is nothing wrong with also offering copies for sale for those 

who want them, at a reasonable price that recovers the marginal cost of reproduction, handling, 

30 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

and postage. There are possibly a number of efficiencies that could result from consolidating the 

GPO and NTIS sales programs. We would eliminate costly and unnecessary competition, under 

which we have split revenues for similar products, such as the IRS CD-ROM. GPO’s larger 

program, which last year sold some 18 million copies, could potentially offer a number of 

economies of scale to the NTIS operation, which only sells about a million copies annually, 

possibly lowering NTIS prices. Finally, a consolidation of these operations would help to 

eliminate public confusion about where to go to obtain government information. This would 

have tremendous value in making public access simpler and more user-friendly. 

Permanent Access Beyond these issues, we need to have a system for providing permanent 

public access to government information. In this age of electronic documents, which are put up 

and then removed from the web at will, ensuring continuing, permanent access to government 

information is emerging as a tremendous challenge. The same is true for agencies that are 

terminated and go out of business. Their information resources need to be made permanently 

available for active, ongoing use. This is a function that will involve a variety of institutions: 

government agencies, GPO, the National Archives, and the library community. What we are 

talking about is not simply creating archives of information, but permanently accessible and 

available collections, similar to the concept of permanent collections in regional depository 

libraries. We have already had a great deal of success in establishing partnerships with libraries 

to house specific agency collections. The government’s role in assuring permanent public access 

to government information is completely appropriate. The government can’t continually adopt 

new technology for making current information available to the public while at the same time 

abdicating its responsibility to provide for the safekeeping and accessibility of information that’s 

no longer current or “hot.” 

The principle of public access to government information, and its long history in this country at 

the constitutional, statutory, and administrative levels, provides a rich set of precedents for 

today’s information disseminators to live up to. As technology continues to change, government 

rules, as well as the rules and roles of those in the library community, must continue to evolve. 

But what must stay constant is a continuing adherence to the principle of public access and its 

centrality to our system of informed self-government. 

31 
AN-v20-#17-11/15/99 

32 

Table of Contents

Biennial Survey Due December 1................................................................................................. 1 

George D. Barnum Appointed Electronic Collection Manager.................................................... 1 

Steven Kerchoff Appointed Electronic Transition Specialist....................................................... 2 

Upcoming FDLP Events 2000...................................................................................................... 2 

SuDocs Letter: Destroy DOE CD-ROM....................................................................................... 3 

Cataloging Branch Update / Downing, Council Meeting, 10/99.................................................. 4 

GPO Access Update / Evans, Council Meeting, 10/99................................................................. 8 

LPS FY 1999 Report to the Depository Library Council ........................................................... 12 

Remarks / DiMario, Conference on Government Information Issues in the 21st Century 

 on the Foundations of Federal Public Access Policy............................................................... 20 

Administrative Notes is published in Washington, DC by the Superintendent of Documents, Library 

Programs Service, Government Printing Office, for the staffs of U.S. Federal Depository Libraries. 

It is published on the 15th day of each month; some months have additional issues. Postmaster send 

address changes to: The Editor, Administrative Notes 

 U.S. Government Printing Office 

 Library Programs Service, SLLD 

 Washington, DC 20401 

Internet access via World Wide Web at URL: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/adnotes.html 

Editor: Marian W. MacGilvray (202) 512-1119 mmacgilvray@gpo.gov