U.S. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE

A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC 

INFORMATION DISSEMINATION 

FINAL REPORT, VOLUME 3 

SUPPLEMENTARY REFERENCE MATERIALS 

(APPENDICES 13 THROUGH 34) 

JANUARY 26, 2001 

NCLIS 

U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1110 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005-3552
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1110 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005-3552 

Telephone: 202-606-9200; Fax: 202-606-9203; Web: www.nclis.gov 

The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science is a permanent, independent agency 

of the federal government, established in 1970 with the enactment of Public Law 91-345. The 

Commission is charged with: 

• advising the President and the Congress on the implementation of policy; 

• conducting studies, surveys, and analyses of the library and informational needs of the nation; 

• appraising the adequacies and deficiencies of current library and information resources and 

services; and 

• developing overall plans for meeting national library and informational needs. 

The Commission also advises federal, state, and local governments, and other public and private 

organizations, regarding library and information sciences, including consultations on relevant treaties, 

international agreements and implementing legislation, and it promotes research and development 

activities which will extend and improve the nation's library and information handling capability as 

essential links in the national and international networks. 

Commissioners and Staff include: 

Martha B. Gould, Chair

Joan R. Challinor, Vice Chair 

C.E. "Abe" Abramson LeVar Burton Marilyn G. Mason 

Walter Anderson José-Marie Griffiths Bobby L. Roberts 

Rebecca T. Bingham Jack E. Hightower 

Paulette H. Holahan 

Donald L. Robinson 

 

James H. Billington, Beverly Sheppard, 

Librarian of Congress 

Robert S. Willard

Acting Director, Institute of 

Museum & Library Services 

 Executive Director 

Judith C. Russell 

 Deputy Director 

 

 Assessment Co-coordinators:

F. Woody Horton 

Sarah T. Kadec

NCLIS Consultants 
U.S. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE

A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC 

INFORMATION DISSEMINATION 

FINAL REPORT, VOLUME 3 

SUPPLEMENTARY REFERENCE MATERIALS 

(APPENDICES 13 THROUGH 34) 

JANUARY 26, 2001 

NCLIS 

U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1110 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005-3552
Suggested Citation: 

U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. 

A comprehensive assessment of public information dissemination, final report. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, 2001. 

4 volumes. Volume 1: A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination; Volume 2: 

Legislative and Regulatory Proposals; Volume 3: Supplementary Reference Materials; and Volume 4: 

Compilation of Recent Statutes Relating to Public Information Dissemination. 

Note: Volume 1 is available in electronic form at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol1.pdf and 

in print; it contains the executive summary, the report and Appendices 1 through 10. Volume 2 is 

available in electronic form at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol2.pdf and in print; it 

contains Appendices 11 and 12, the legislative and regulatory proposals. Volume 3 is available only in 

electronic form at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol3.pdf; it contains Appendices 13 through 

34, supplementary reference materials. Volume 4 is available only in electronic form at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol4.pdf; it contains Appendix 35, a compilation of recent 

statutes relating to public information dissemination. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents......................................................................................................................................i

Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...............................................................................................v

Volume 3: Supplementary Reference Materials ......................................................................................1

Appendix 13. NCLIS Study Plan Outline ............................................................................................1

Background ......................................................................................................................................1

Advisory Panel Chairs and Panel Operations...................................................................................1

Timetable..........................................................................................................................................4

Other Elements of the Study ............................................................................................................4

Final Report to the Congress and the President ...............................................................................6

Volunteers Needed ...........................................................................................................................7

Public Review and Comment...........................................................................................................7

Appendix 14. Some Issues and Concerns to Address ..........................................................................8

Background ......................................................................................................................................8

General Issues and Concerns............................................................................................................9

Specific Issues and Concerns .........................................................................................................11

Appendix 15. Some Important Information Age Paradigms Shifts and Their Associated 

Myths, and Realities ................................................................................................................14

Prefatory Note ................................................................................................................................14

Major Paradigm Shifts ...................................................................................................................14

Appendix 16. Government Information Life Cycle Management .....................................................25

Introduction....................................................................................................................................25

Background ....................................................................................................................................25

The Mission and The Needs...........................................................................................................27

The Operational Requirements.......................................................................................................28

The Information Resources Management System (IRMS) ............................................................29

Appendix 17. An Invited Retrospective Appraisal of the 1982 NCLIS Public Sector/Private 

Sector Task Force Report ........................................................................................................32

The Primary Issues.........................................................................................................................32

The Principles.................................................................................................................................32

The Recommendations...................................................................................................................36

Definitions......................................................................................................................................40

Appendix 18. The World Wide Library.............................................................................................43

Why can't the Web be more like a library? ....................................................................................43

Moving Toward Decentralized Collections ...................................................................................44

Reciprocal Catalog Access.............................................................................................................45

Appendix 19. FirstGov.gov: A Preliminary Assessment ...................................................................49

A Preliminary Assessment of FirstGov..........................................................................................49

A Comparison of the United States and United Kingdom Internet Gateways ...............................52

Appendix 20. Linking The Information Life Cycle Concept With Digital Libraries ........................56

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................56

The Information Lifecycle Model ..................................................................................................56

Information Creation......................................................................................................................58

Information Search.........................................................................................................................60
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

ii 

Information Utilization.................................................................................................................. 62

Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 63

Appendix 21. Creating the Magic of Information ............................................................................. 64

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 64

Ten Commandments for the Internet Age ..................................................................................... 65

Conclusion: Information is Magic! ............................................................................................... 69

Appendix 22. Study Panels and Group of Experts Memberships ..................................................... 71

Panel One—NTIS Business Model............................................................................................... 71

Panel Two—Internal Government Users ...................................................................................... 72

Panel Three—External (to government) Users ............................................................................. 73

Panel Four—Public-Private Sector Partnerships........................................................................... 73

Group of Experts ........................................................................................................................... 74

Appendix 23. Panel One: Final Report on A Reformed NTIS Business Model for the 

Internet Age ............................................................................................................................ 76

Contents......................................................................................................................................... 76

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 76

The NTIS Business Model—What Went Wrong? ........................................................................ 77

Is There a Need for NTIS in the Internet Age? ............................................................................. 78

Scope of NTIS Collection ............................................................................................................. 81

NTIS Operations in the Internet Age............................................................................................. 81

Searchable Access ......................................................................................................................... 81

Pointing to Documents on the Web............................................................................................... 82

Backup Distribution....................................................................................................................... 82

Permanent Accessibility ................................................................................................................ 83

NTIS Mission ................................................................................................................................ 84

A "New" Business Model for NTIS .............................................................................................. 84

Depository Libraries...................................................................................................................... 86

Reorganization of Government Information Activities................................................................. 87

Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 88

Panel 1, Appendix A: Members of Panel 1 ................................................................................... 89

Panel 1, Appendix B: NTIS Estimates for Appropriated Funds for "Public Good" 

Functions............................................................................................................................. 90

Appendix 24. Panel Two: Final Report on Federal Agency Needs for Central Information 

Services and Information Management .................................................................................. 92

Contents......................................................................................................................................... 92

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... 92

The Charge .................................................................................................................................... 94

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 94

Defining The Federal Information Environment........................................................................... 96

Analysis....................................................................................................................................... 101

Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................................ 119

Panel 2, Appendix A: Members of Panel 2 ................................................................................. 121

Panel 2, Appendix B: FOIA Exemptions .................................................................................... 122

Appendix 25. Panel Three: Final Report on Citizen, Business, Lower Levels of 

Government, Library, and Other Needs for Public Information Products and Services....... 124

Contents....................................................................................................................................... 124

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 124

External Users ............................................................................................................................. 125

Current Dissemination................................................................................................................. 126

Opportunities............................................................................................................................... 127
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

iii 

Archiving, Access, and Preservation............................................................................................130

Scientific and Technical Information...........................................................................................131

Recommendations for the Dissemination of Government Information .......................................133

Panel 3, Appendix A: Members of Panel 3..................................................................................135

Appendix 26. Panel Four: Final Report on Renewed and Strengthened Partnerships 

Between the Public and Private Sectors for Public Information Dissemination....................136

Contents........................................................................................................................................136

Overview of Study Background, Panel's Purpose and Issues Identified......................................137

Critical Issues and Working Panel Reports..................................................................................138

Common Themes/Concerns of the Working Groups...................................................................147

Definitions of Government/Public Information ...........................................................................148

Review of NCLIS Principles........................................................................................................150

Recommendations ........................................................................................................................153

Panel 4, Appendix A: Provisions from the U.S. Code, Title 44, Section 3506(d) .......................154

Panel 4, Appendix B: Selected Statutory Provisions from the U.S. Code, Title 44, 

Chapters 17 and 19 ............................................................................................................155

Panel 4, Appendix C: Members of Panel 4 ..................................................................................156

Appendix 27. Survey of Selected Federal Agency Policies, Programs and Practices Relating 

to Public Information Dissemination.....................................................................................158

Survey Instrument ........................................................................................................................158

Survey Responses from Agencies................................................................................................159

Appendix 28. Survey of the Public Information Needs of Disadvantaged and Special 

Populations ............................................................................................................................185

Survey Instrument ........................................................................................................................185

Survey Responses From Associations and Other Organizations .................................................187

Appendix 29. Public Information Resources Maps..........................................................................196

Appendix 30. European Commission Green Paper on Public Sector Information in the 

Information Society ...............................................................................................................211

Table of Contents .........................................................................................................................211

The Issue ......................................................................................................................................211

Chapter I: Why Is Public Sector Information a Key Resource for Europe?.................................213

Appendix 31. A Bibliography of Government Information Dissemination Resources ...................220

Appendix 32. A Bibliography of National Information Policies .....................................................251

Appendix 33. Index to a Compilation of Recent Federal Statutes Pertaining to Public 

Information Dissemination ....................................................................................................258

Index of Statutes by Category ......................................................................................................260

Index of Statutes by Public Law Number ....................................................................................276

Appendix 34. NCLIS Comprehensive Assessment Web Page Table of Contents as of 

January 26, 2001....................................................................................................................287

1. Final Report and Appendices ...................................................................................................287

2. Congressional and Executive Branch Communications Not In the Appendices......................290

3. Study Goals, Organization, Plans, Meetings, & Schedules Not In the Appendices.................290

4. Stakeholder Communications ..................................................................................................291

5. Panel and Group of Experts Communications .........................................................................292

6. Study-Relevant Articles, Reports and Directives, Publications, Studies, and 

Conferences .......................................................................................................................292

7. Web Site Links.........................................................................................................................295
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

iv 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

v 

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

A variety of acronyms and abbreviations are used is this report and its appendices as a short form for 

long or commonly used names and phrases. The first time a name or phrase is mentioned in the text, 

the acronym is provided in parentheses following the full name, e.g., the National Commission on 

Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS). Subsequent references may use only the acronym. This 

table is provided to facilitate identification of acronyms and abbreviations since it may be difficult to 

locate the first use where the full name or phrase is provided. 

AALL American Association of Law Libraries 

AAMR American Association on Mental Retardation 

AAP American Association of Publishers 

AARP Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons 

ACE Americans Communicating Electronically 

ACRL Association of College Research Libraries 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

ADD Automatic Document Distribution 

AFFIRM Association for Federal Information Resources Management 

AIIP Association of Independent Information Professionals 

ALA American Library Association 

ALISE Association of Library and Information Science Education 

AMTD Automatic Magnetic Tape Distribution 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

AO or AOUSC Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

APDU Association of Public Data Users 

ARC Archival Research Catalog 

ARL Association of Research Libraries 

ARMA Association of Records Managers and Administrators 

ARPA Advanced Research Projects Agency, Department of Defense 

ASCII American Standard Code for Information Interchange 

ASCLA Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies 

ASIS American Society for Information Science, now American Society for 

Information Science and Technology 

ASIST American Society for Information Science and Technology, formerly 

American Society for Information Science 

ATPA American Technology Preeminence Act 

CAB Current Awareness Bibliography 

CBD Commerce Business Daily 

CBO Congressional Budget Office 

CCSDS Consultative Committee on Space Data System 

CCIA Computer and Communications Industry Association 

CD-ROM Compact Disk-Read Only Memory 

CENDI A consortium of scientific and technical information intensive federal 

agencies, including Defense, Energy, EPA, NASA, NLM, NTIS, and others 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

vi 

CFO Chief Financial Officer 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CIC Consumer Information Center 

CIO Chief Information Officer 

CIRO Congressional Information Resources Office (proposed) 

CLB Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind 

CLIR Council on Library and Information Resources 

CNRI Corporation for National Research Initiatives 

COPPA The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act 

COSATI Committee on Scientific and Technical Information 

COSLA Chief Officers of State Library Agencies 

CPIR Council on Public Information Resources (proposed) 

CRS Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress 

CSTB Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Academy of 

Sciences 

DOC Department of Commerce 

DOD Department of Defense 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DOL Department of Labor 

DOT Department of Transportation 

DTIC Defense Technical Information Center 

DVD Digital Video Disk 

E-FOIA Electronic Freedom of Information Act 

ECFS Electronic Comment Filing System 

ECOS Environmental Council of the States 

EFT Electronic Funds Transfer 

EOP Executive Office of the President 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

ERA Electronic Records Archive 

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center 

ES Expert Systems 

ESA Employment Security Administration 

ETDC Energy Technology Data Center 

EU European Union 

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulations 

FCC Federal Communications Commission 

FDLP Federal Depository Library Program 

FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee 

FILIS Federal Institute of Library and Information Science (proposed) 

FIPS Federal Information Processing Standards 

FLICC Federal Library and Information Center Committee 

FOIA Freedom of Information Act 

FPC Federal Publishers Committee 

FTS Federal Telecommunications Standards 

FWF Federal WebMasters Forum 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

vii 

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior 

FY Fiscal Year 

GAO General Accounting Office 

GILS Government Information Locator Service 

GODORT Government Documents Roundtable of the American Library Association 

GPEA Government Paperwork Elimination Act 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

GPO Government Printing Office 

GSA General Services Administration 

GXML Government eXtensible Markup Language 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

HTML HyperText Markup Language 

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development 

ICB Information Collection Budget 

ICPPS Interagency Council on Printing and Publications Services 

ICSP Interagency Committee on Statistical Policy 

ICSTI International Committee for Scientific and Technical Information 

ICSU International Council of Scientific Unions 

IDB Information Dissemination Budget 

IEA International Energy Agency 

IETF Internet Engineering Task Force 

IFLA International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions 

IIA Information Industry Association, now merged into the Software and 

Information Industry Association 

ILCM Information Life Cycle Manager software program (proposed) 

IMLS Institute of Museum and Library Services 

INIS International Nuclear Information System 

IRM Information Resources Management 

IRMS Information Resources Management System 

IRS Internal Revenue Service 

ISI Institute for Scientific Information 

ISO International Standards Organization 

IT Information Technology 

ITU International Telecommunications Union 

JIRO Judicial Information Resources Office (proposed) 

LC Library of Congress 

LEP Limited English Proficiency 

LSCA Library Services and Construction Act 

LSTA Library Services and Technology Act 

MIS Management Information Systems 

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

MLA Medical Library Association 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

viii 

NAE National Academy of Engineering 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System, formerly the Standard 

Industrial Classification (SIC) 

NAILS National Archives Information Locator 

NAL National Agriculture Library 

NARA National Archives and Records Administration 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NASIRE National Association of State Information Resource Executives 

NBA National Braille Association 

NBII National Biological Information Infrastructure 

NCLIS National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

NDLTD Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations 

NFAIS National Federation of Abstracting and Information Services 

NFFE National Federation of Federal Employees 

NFIL National Forum on Information Literacy 

NIIAC National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council 

NISO National Information Standards Organization 

NIST National Information Standards 

NLE National Library of Education 

NLM National Library of Medicine 

NLS National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, Library 

of Congress 

NOD National Organization on Disabilities 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPR National Performance Review 

NPRG National Partnership for Reinventing Government 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NRC National Research Council 

NSA National Security Agency 

NSDI National Spatial Data Infrastructure 

NSDL National Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology Education 

Digital Library, also called the National Science Digital Library 

NSF National Science Foundation 

NTIA National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

NTIS National Technical Information Service 

NWS National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

OAIS Open Archival Information System 

OCLC OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. 

OCR Optical Character Recognition 

OFPP Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget 

OFR Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration 

OIA Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, Executive Office of the President 

OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OMT Object Modeling Technique 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

OSTI Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Department of Energy 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

ix 

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President 

OTA Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress 

PDF Adobe Systems Acrobat Portable Document Format 

PEC Procurement Executives Council 

PIRA Public Information Resources Administration (proposed) 

PIRUC Public Information Resources Users Council (proposed) 

PITAC President's Information Technology Advisory Committee 

PKI Public Key Infrastructure 

PLA Public Library Association 

PPA Permanent Public Availability 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

PS/PS Public Sector/Private Sector 

PTO Patent and Trademark Office 

PUMS Public Microdata User Samples 

PURL Persistent Uniform Resource Locator 

R&D Research and Development 

RDF Resource Description Framework 

RFP Request for Proposal 

RKR RecordKeeping Requirements

ROI Return on Investment 

SDA Source Data Automation 

SDI Selective Dissemination of Information 

SDTS Spatial Data Transfer Standard 

SEC Securities and Exchange Commission 

SGML Standard Generalized Markup Language 

SHHHP Self-Help for Hard of Hearing People, National Center on Assistive 

Technologies 

SIC Standard Industrial Classification, not North American Industry Classification 

System 

SIIA Software and Information Industry Association, includes the former 

Information Industry Association 

SLA Special Libraries Association 

SRIM Selected Research in Microfiche 

SSA Social Security Administration 

STI Scientific and Technical Information 

STIE Scientific, Technical and Engineering Information 

STINET Scientific and Technical Information Network 

SuDocs Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office 

SuPICT Superintendent of Public Information and Communications Technologies 

(proposed) 

SuPIR Superintendent of Public Information Resources (proposed) 

TDI Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. (former name) 

TIFF Tagged Image File Format 

TRAIL Technical Report Awareness Internet Links 

ULC Urban Libraries Council 

ULS Universal Licensing System 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

x 

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 

URL Uniform Resource Locator 

URN Uniform Resource Name 

USC (or U.S.C.) United States Code 

USGS Geological Survey, Department of the Interior 

USDA Department of Agriculture 

XML eXtensible Markup Language 

Y2K Year 2000 

WARMS Web-Automated Reference Materials System 

WWW World Wide Web 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-1 

VOLUME 3: SUPPLEMENTARY REFERENCE MATERIALS

APPENDICES 13 THROUGH 34 

NOTE: Appendices 1 through 10 are in Volume 1 of the Commission's report, A 

Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination, which is available 

in electronic form at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assessv1.pdf and in print. 

Appendices 11 and 12 are in Volume 2, Legislative and Regulatory Proposals; it is 

available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol2.pdf and in print. 

Appendices 13 through 34 are in this volume, Supplementary Reference Materials; 

Volume 3 is available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol3.pdf. 

Appendix 35 is in Volume 4, Compilation of Recent Federal Statutes on Information 

Dissemination; it is available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol4.pdf. 

Each appendix is also available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.html as an 

individual file. The unique file name for each appendix is included as the appendix is 

inserted below. 

Most of the appendices were posted on the Commission website during the course of 

the study to facilitate public access, review and comment. The appendices, and other 

files providing background on the assessment, will remain on the Commission website 

for permanent public access. The Commission feels that this method of distribution is 

in keeping with the subject matter of this report, which encourages agencies to ensure 

the permanent public accessibility of their electronic public information resources. 

Appendices submitted to the Commission as paper copies have been scanned and 

reformatted, so the content is as submitted, but the format is different. Electronic 

submissions have also been reformatted, but the content is as submitted. 

A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-1 

APPENDIX 13. NCLIS STUDY PLAN OUTLINE 

Note: This plan was developed in July 2000 and reflects the Commission's plans at the 

beginning of the assessment. As was intended, these plans were amended and changed 

as circumstances and opportunities warranted. The original document is included here 

to show how the assessment was originally planned, and does not convey everything 

that was, in fact, done as part of the study, or even how each thing was done. 

Developed by F. Woody Horton, NCLIS Consultant 

In Consultation with the Commissioners and Staff 

BACKGROUND1

This is a study plan outline for the NCLIS study of public information dissemination reforms, 

including information on the establishment and operation of the four advisory panels and the Board of 

Experts,2

 and other related NCLIS research activities that are planned. 

On June 12, 2000, Senator John McCain, Chairman of the Senate's Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation Committee, signed a letter to NCLIS Chairperson Martha Gould asking NCLIS to 

undertake an independent review of the government's public information dissemination laws, policies, 

programs, and practices. A copy of that letter, NCLIS Chairperson Martha Gould's reply, as well as an 

NCLIS press release, appears above at this URL address. 

Henceforth NCLIS will be referring to the first stage of the study completed in March 2000 of the 

NTIS situation as the "Preliminary Assessment of the NTIS Closure and Transfer," or Stage One, and 

the next stage of the study, which is just now being launched, as the "Comprehensive Assessment of 

Public Information Dissemination," or Stage Two. 

ADVISORY PANEL CHAIRS AND PANEL OPERATIONS 

To help the Commission in its investigations, four advisory panels and one Board of Experts are being 

established. The four panels are: 

• Panel 1 (NTIS Business Model)-Reforming the NTIS business model for the Information Age; 

• Panel 2 (Internal Government Reforms)-The extent to which individual government agency 

needs for NTIS, GPO, NARA, national library, & other central service bureau types of 

information products and services are not being adequately satisfied because of deficient, 

outmoded, obsolete or unresponsive laws, programs, policies, or practices; 

• Panel 3 (External User Needs)-The extent to which external (i.e. non-governmental) user needs 

for NTIS, GPO, NARA, national library, & other central government information products and 

services, as well as individual Federal agency information products and services are not being 

 

1

 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen13.pdf and at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/planout.html. 

This appendix was last revised on July 25, 2000. 

2

 This was later referred to as the "Group of Experts." 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-2 

adequately satisfied because of deficient, outmoded, obsolete, or unresponsive laws, programs, 

policies, or practices; user needs include: private corporations; institutions such as universities, 

research organizations and hospitals; library and other intermediary distributors of government 

information (including public, State, academic, research, depository and special libraries); public 

interest groups; and individual citizen needs; and 

• Panel 4 (Public-Private Sector Partnerships)-Redefining public-private sector roles, 

partnerships, and initiatives vis-à-vis public access to, and dissemination of government 

information, given the advent of the World Wide Web, the Internet, and associate technological 

changes that are driving the Information Age. 

NCLIS is very pleased to announce that all four candidates invited to serve as chairs have accepted the 

invitations. They are: 

Panel One: Reforming the NTIS Business Model: Chair: Peter Urbach, former Director, National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS), publisher and consultant; 

Panel Two: Internal Federal Agency Information Needs: Chair: Kurt Molholm, Administrator, 

Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), Department of Defense, and Chair, CENDI 

(interagency group of agencies with important scientific and technical information missions and 

programs); 

Panel Three: External (public) Information Needs: Chair: Miriam Drake, Dean and Director of 

Libraries, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia; former President, Special Libraries 

Association; and 

Panel Four: Refining Public-Private Sector Roles: Chair: Wayne Kelley, former Superintendent of 

Documents, Government Printing Office, consultant. 

All four of these distinguished individuals participated in the NCLIS Stage One study dealing with the 

planned closure of NTIS. All four are widely respected, both within and well beyond the boundaries of 

the library, government information handling, and electronic publishing fields. NCLIS is honored that 

they have agreed to serve in this role, and requests that they be given the fullest support from federal 

agencies, lower levels of government, public institutions such as universities and hospitals, private 

corporations, public interest groups, professional associations, and individual private citizens. 

The panels will not just look at the negative side of the equation - - that is deficiencies. They will also 

look at the positive side of the equation. That is, try to identify "success stories" where a law, program, 

policy, or practice is working particularly well, is innovative, perhaps is because it is interactive, 

perhaps because it is multimedia, or has a "multiplier impact," and therefore, for these and/or other 

reasons, could be more broadly emulated. Reviewing what is working well applies to both the public 

and private sectors, and especially where private sector practices might be adopted and adapted to the 

Government's programs. 

Moreover, the findings and results of the deliberations of each of the four panels will be "crossfertilized, laterally and horizontally" and, at the most propitious and appropriate time, made available 

for public review and comment so that as wide a set of viewpoints as is feasible can be solicited. In 

short, NCLIS does not want the four panels to operate purely in a "stovepipe, vacuum fashion." 

NCLIS found in its stage one study that broad public participation, and the resultant wide stakeholder 

"back and forth" interaction, fostered a valuable climate for ferreting out both hidden facts and 

enlightened opinions. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-3 

All stakeholder groups are encouraged to seek participation in the work of all four of the panels, 

whether they are from the public or private sectors. For example, there is no intention that the 

participation of library professionals be limited just to panel three, or the participation of government 

agencies be limited just to panel two, or the participation of private sector individuals be limited just to 

panels one or four. NCLIS hopes there will be as wide a cross-section of stakeholder representation as 

is feasible given study constraints on all four panels. 

The Board of Experts will be composed of recognized, knowledgeable individuals in the fields of 

information and communications technologies, economics, legal matters, and perhaps other 

specialized technical fields, including especially the World Wide Web and the Internet, state-of-the-art 

online approaches, alternative ways of measuring and valuing both the benefits and costs of creating, 

adding value to, packaging, and making available and distributing government information resources 

to the public, and so forth. The Board will also assist NCLIS in predicting major future changes and 

paradigm shifts they perceive on the horizon. 

An NCLIS staff person, consultant, or commissioner will serve as liaison to each panel and the board. 

Membership on each panel and the board will be recommended by the chairs, NCLIS, and other 

interested parties such as associations, but the Commission reserves final membership approval 

authority. 

The advisory panels are being asked to: 

1. Analyze the key issues and concerns falling within the scope of their respective panels (i.e., 

perhaps an outdated law, a poorly written or interpreted rule, an obsolete regulation, the need for a 

new policy, a poorly operating program, deficient agency practice, or some combination thereof) 

in terms of: 

• What is "wrong," deficient, not working as expected, or is out-of-date; and, if so, 

exactly how and why; conversely, are there "success stories," wherein something 

innovative is working especially well, and might be more widely followed; 

• What needs to be done to remedy the deficiency (i.e. the reform(s) needed); did the 

panel make certain assumptions in order to arrive at a recommended (preferred) 

course of action, and, if so, what are those assumptions; 

• What barriers and constraints exist, if any, to fully and effectively implementing the 

recommended reforms; and, conversely, what enabling actions (e.g. new legislation, 

parlaying the "success stories" of agency initiatives that are especially creative, 

innovative and effective) can be taken to create more positive conditions for 

strengthening the dissemination of government information to the public; and 

• Should the reforms be subdivided, timeframe-wise, into short, medium, and long-term 

reforms, and, if so, how and what are those timeframes? 

2. Try to assess the likely technological state-of-the-art capabilities in the short (current to two 

years), mid (2-5 years) and long term (beyond five years) timeframes that will impact the ability of 

the government to improve its public information dissemination programs and practices, including 

hardware, software, networks, and information interchange protocols; in this regard the Board of 

Experts should be able to provide useful advice; and 

3. Prepare and submit a draft final panel report to NCLIS with findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations; ideally (but not mandatory) include the text, or at least an abstract, or "key 

points" for any proposed new or amended legislation, executive orders, rules or regulations, other 

kinds of policy statements (e.g. OMB circulars or bulletins, executive orders), or other 

requirements. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-4 

NCLIS will then forward a copy of the four advisory panel draft reports to the Board of Experts for 

their review and comment; the panel and board chairs are expected to meet as necessary to discuss 

how to proceed. Once again, to the extent deadlines permit, the public will be invited to review and 

comment on first drafts. 

TIMETABLE 

NCLIS staff comments, and the Board of Experts' comments, as well as the comments of other 

selected reviewers, will be forwarded to the panel chairs who will make the necessary revisions in 

their draft reports, and prepare and submit a final report to NCLIS no later than October 1, 2000. 

NCLIS will consolidate the four panel reports, review the comments of the board and other reviewers, 

and prepare a final draft overall report. 

The draft final consolidated report will be forwarded to the panel chairs and the board chair for review 

and comment by November 15, 2000; the draft report will also be posted to this Web site, and 

otherwise made available for public review and comment. The interested committees of the Congress 

will also be asked to review these documents. 

NCLIS will prepare and submit its final report to the President and the Congress December 15, 2000, 

as required by Senator McCain's Committee. 

For its part, NCLIS will do everything it can to support the panel chairs and the work of the panels. 

For example, NCLIS staff liaisons will facilitate posting materials, group e-mailings, faxes, 

duplication and mailings, and so forth. 

OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE STUDY 

There are other key elements of the NCLIS study beyond the work of the four advisory panels and the 

Board of Experts. For example, the NCLIS Public-Private Sector Task Force report published in 1982 

will be republished with a new preface explaining why the findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations in the original report are still quite relevant nearly twenty years later, despite very 

significant interim technological developments. Former NCLIS Chairperson Charles Benton, former 

NCLIS Executive Director Dean Toni Carbo, and former NCLIS Task Force Chairperson Robert 

Hayes have all been contacted and have enthusiastically endorsed the Commission's plans in this 

regard. The republished document will be made widely available. 

A variety of additional key research activities are also contemplated. These efforts will begin and 

proceed in parallel to the work of the panels, and will be under the direction of various volunteers. The 

results of these activities will be made available to the panels and the Board as soon as they become 

available. If panels identify additional research activities beyond those here listed, they are encouraged 

to bring them to the attention of NCLIS. Some of these already underway include (short, informal and 

unofficial titles are used for brevity sake herein): 

1. Update the Congressional Research Service (CRS) review "Compilation of Statutes Authorizing 

Dissemination of Government Information to the Public" dated March 29, 1996, co-authored by 

Jane Bortnick Griffith, Harold C. Relyea and Frances A. Bufalo; 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-5 

2. Update the "National Information Policies Bibliography" published in 1996 by Dean Toni Carbo 

of the School of Information Sciences of the University of Pittsburgh, including the newlyacquired document collection from former CRS official Robert Chartrand; 

3. Informal Survey of Selected Federal Agency Public Information Dissemination Programs and 

Practices, including agency Websites, classified by agency type such as cabinet department, 

regulatory, etc., by subject matter coverage, by special interests targeted, and so forth; coordinate 

closely with Panel Two; 

4. Update Phase 1 of the 1998 GPO/Westat study to ensure NCLIS is fully aware of the state-of-theart Federal IT situation, initially done by the National Academy of Sciences, Computer Sciences 

and Technology Board; coordinate closely with the Board of Experts; 

5. Communicate and/or meet with representatives of the NIIAC, Access America/NPR, and the very 

recently announced FirstGov.Gov and WebGov.Gov initiatives, and the Government[-] 

Connection.Com initiative; GPO including FDLP/Sales Program/GPO Access; LC Thomas/Other 

Library of Congress Programs and services; Statistical Agencies; public information user groups 

such as Americans Communicating Electronically (ACE) and the Association of Public Data 

Users (APDU); professional library associations including ALA, SLA, ARL, ACRL, PLA, AALL 

ULC and COSLA; coordinate closely with Panel Three; 

6. Secure assistance of experienced "legislative drafter specialists" to help prepare recommended 

legislation, rules, regulations, executive orders, OMB circulars and bulletins, other kinds of policy 

statements, and so forth; 

7. Special coordination with the CIO Council and its committees, with responsibility for public 

information creation, handling, storage, retrieval, dissemination, archiving, and so forth, especially 

those overseeing the FirstGov.Gov and E-Gov initiatives; coordinate closely with Panel Two; 

8. Preparation of a comprehensive Stage Two Study bibliography; 

9. Preparation of Key General Reference Annexes, including a comprehensive "Public Information 

Resources Map" which could serve as a working matrix that classifies, cross-indexes and 

correlates in other useful ways the full array of: 

• Federal information laws, public information resources, legislative and executive 

authorities and responsibilities, 

• Agency public information roles, products, and services, both central service bureau 

and individual agencies (sorted by subject category, targeted beneficiary entitlement 

groups, and so forth), 

• The various major Federal information beneficiary and user groups, 

• How public information programs and services are financed (e.g. appropriations, 

revolving funds, user fees), 

• Whether fees are charged for a government information product or service, or not, and 

• So forth. 

10. A background section will be prepared for the final report succinctly describing in highlight 

fashion "major relevant Information Age paradigm shifts" which have/are occurring during the 

transition from the pre-electronic to the electronic era, such as: 

• How the basic ideas of "access" vs. "dissemination" are changing significantly; 

• How agency and private sector roles, responsibilities, missions, and methods are being 

realigned, 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-6 

• Permanent public access vs. impermanent public access to current information, 

• Paper-based collections being replaced by electronic databases, 

• E-gov vs. paper-based gov, and 

• About two dozen additional major paradigm shifts. 

FINAL REPORT TO THE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT 

NCLIS will receive inputs for its final report throughout the course of the study from: 

1. The work of the four advisory panels; 

2. The work of the Board of Experts; 

3. Results of review of the various research activities, including literature reviews, the database of 

current information laws, and so on; 

4. Results of the selected federal agency surveys of their principal public information dissemination 

programs and practices; 

5. Meetings with the CIO Council and its committees, and other key interagency groups including 

the Federal Publishers Committee, the Interagency Committee on Publishing and Printing, the 

Federal Library and Information Center Committee, the Federal Webmasters Group, and others; 

6. Meetings with library and information professional associations, including ALA, SLA, AALL, 

COSLA, ASIS, ARL, ACRL, ULC, PLA, and others; 

7. Meetings with State, local, and tribal library and information professional associations, and with 

special and specialized societies; 

8. Meetings with private sector groups including trade and industry associations, unions, and others; 

9. Meetings with public information user groups, including ACE and APDU; 

10. Public responses to NCLIS Web Site postings, and other relevant web sites including, notably, the 

new e-Gov web site launched by the Senate Governmental Affairs committee; 

11. Inputs from other sources 

NCLIS's final report will include a foreword, acknowledgements paragraph, background section, a 

findings section, a conclusions section, and a recommendations section, plus a bibliography, a list of 

study participants, a chronology, and a variety of annexes. The analysis undertaken to prepare this 

report will take into account advantages and disadvantages of alternative proposed courses of action 

over the current situation, a preferred course of action and how and why it was selected, how those 

recommendations will "set the stage" for public information dissemination in the next 10/20 years at 

least (but ideally longer if feasible), savings (including benefits to citizens, not just costs), and other 

analytical justifications. The emphasis will be on trying to answer the challenge: "How will the 

recommended, preferred course of action improve over what is being done now?" To the extent time 

and budget constraints permit, key implementation follow-on steps and actions required will also be 

identified. The recommendations will also be time-phased in a "transition plan" type of format in order 

to differentiate short range, mid-range, and longer term actions. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-7 

VOLUNTEERS NEEDED 

The initially established NTIS Study "Stakeholder Group" of about 100 people has already been 

alerted electronically to the next steps in the study, and volunteers for various tasks solicited, including 

panel/board membership, and related study research project such as those listed above. Many 

volunteers have already stepped forward, but more are needed. Additional participation is hereby 

invited; individuals may contact either a panel chair, or NCLIS. Moreover, volunteers may undertake 

various tasks without necessarily having to be a member of a panel. Some individuals may wish to 

serve on a panel in a proactive role whereas others may wish to remain in a more passive "observer 

status" to track progress and review deliverables. 

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT 

The vehicle of the NCLIS Website will again be used as a primary communications and coordination 

vehicle for securing involvement and participation, and obtaining public review and comment at key 

stages as the study proceeds and deliverables are produced in draft. Public comment is welcomed at 

any time. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-8 

APPENDIX 14. SOME ISSUES AND CONCERNS TO ADDRESS 

SOME ISSUES AND CONCERNS THE RESOLUTION OF WHICH THE NCLIS STUDY OF 

PUBLIC INFORMATION REFORMS WILL ADDRESS AS OBJECTIVES

Note: This list of issues and concerns was developed in July 2000 and reflects the 

Commission's ideas at the beginning of the assessment. As was intended, these issues 

were expanded and changed as circumstances and opportunities warranted. 

Developed by F. Woody Horton, NCLIS Consultant 

In Consultation with the Commissioners and Staff 

BACKGROUND3

Fundamentally, the NCLIS Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination stems 

from the August 12, 1999 announcement by the Department of Commerce to close NTIS because, in 

the Commerce view, "NTIS cannot continue in its role as a sales agent of government information 

when the same information is available for free on agency web sites." 

In its Preliminary Assessment of the NTIS Closure final study report published in March, 2000, 

NCLIS took the view that the fundamental issues and concerns raised by the "NTIS matter" (such as 

downloading government information for free or relatively minimal costs compared to the price of 

print copies) are not issues and concerns that are limited to scientific and technical government 

information laws, policies, programs, and services. Instead they are an inseparable part of the broader 

need to reform government information dissemination to the public generally, not limited to scientific 

and technical information. 

There are both general issues and concerns being raised, as well as many specific ones. The NCLIS 

study cannot possibly deal exhaustively with all of the issues and concerns involved given the limited 

timeframe for the study, and the very limited available resources (the study will use volunteer help 

primarily; see the Study Plan Outline separately posted). Therefore, it is imperative that a realistic 

study plan be adopted that takes these constraints into account, but at the same time tries to live up to 

expectations as to what the study will accomplish. 

It should also be noted that the President and the Congress are expecting a series of concrete, specific 

recommendations pointing the way to dealing with the issues and concerns documented, not merely a 

descriptive narrative that "illuminates" the challenges and problems. 

 

3

 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen14.pdf and at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/concerns.html. 

This appendix was last revised on July 25, 2000. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-9 

GENERAL ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

From a dissemination of government information to the public standpoint: 

1. How is the dramatic expansion of the availability of, accessibility to, searchability of, 

retrievability of (e.g. downloading) and deliverability of its government data, information, and 

knowledge resources, virtually at no charge to the public via agency web sites on the World Wide 

Web and the Internet, very significantly changing and realigning the traditional missions, roles, 

functions, authorities, and responsibilities of the major government information players and 

stakeholders? These players and stakeholders include: 

a. The federal government 

• Congress and its committees as well as Legislative Branch agencies; 

• The Judicial Branch; 

• The President and Executive Branch agencies (e.g. OMB, OSTP); 

• Major central government information resource service agencies (e.g. GPO, NTIS, 

national libraries, federal libraries and information centers, Library of Congress, etc.); 

• Individual federal agencies, including chief information officers and IRM 

departments, printers and publishers, librarians, public affairs officers, records 

officers, webmasters, and other functional groups, both program and central staff, 

concerned with information creating, organizing, storing, and distributing information 

resources to users; 

• The Federal Depository Library system; 

• Federal government information analysis, dissemination and referral centers, 

clearinghouses, repositories, depositories, archives and records facilities, and related 

types of service organizations; and 

• Historical offices and officers. 

b. Lower levels of government, including tribal governments 

• State and local government chief information officers; 

• State and local government archives and records officers 

• State and local government libraries and librarians; 

• Public libraries and librarians, urban and rural; 

• School libraries and librarians at all levels; 

• Media centers and media specialists at all levels; and 

• Community centers. 

c. The commercial for-profit sector, including entrepreneurs 

• Commercial for-profit publishers and information providers of government 

information, including information brokers and consultants; 

• Telecommunications service providers; 

• Computer and automation services providers; and 

• Online service providers. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-10 

d. Academic, research and other institutions 

• University chief information officers; 

• Academic, research and other institutional publishers and information providers; 

• Hospital chief information officers; 

• Medical publishers and information providers; 

• Science and technology research publishers and information providers; 

• Data centers and data administrators 

• Information analysis centers and information analysts; 

• Information systems and Management Information Systems (MIS) officials; and 

• Medical and other kinds of institutional records officials. 

e. The not-for-profit sector 

• Philanthropic and other foundation chief information officers; 

• Consulting organization chief information officers; and 

• Not-for-profit publishers and information providers. 

f. Individual citizens 

• Individuals (for professional or work-related, educational, health care, consumer, 

recreational or other personal pursuits); 

• Senior citizens; 

• Youth; 

• Minority groups; 

• Rural and remote community dwellers; 

• Disadvantaged and disabled citizens; and 

• Public interest groups. 

2. What are the major economic shifts and dislocations, including incentives and disincentives, that 

are occurring? The sectors affected include: 

• Federal agency producers and providers of government information; 

• Collectors of government information, whether directly by the government or by its 

agents; 

• Organizers and "value-adders" of, and for, public domain knowledge holdings and 

information services for the public; 

• Custodians of government information and records, both temporary and permanent; 

• Distributors of government information, both public and private; and 

• Consumer-users of government information. 

What are the consequences of these shifts and dislocations, both positive and 

negative? What new business models are appropriate, "state-of-the-art", feasible, and 

practical? What return is the government receiving from its investments (ROI) in 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-11 

producing and disseminating information to the public, including the commercial forprofit sector? 

3. What are the legal and policy constraints to creating optimal conditions and a positive and 

constructive environment so that the federal government can effectively position itself to exploit 

and maximize the positive advantages and opportunities of the changes occurring, and minimize 

the disadvantages and risks? Conversely, what enabling steps might be taken to put in place new 

and strengthened legal and policy tools to assist policy officials in exploiting more fully the 

benefits and values of electronic information approaches? 

4. What are the likely major information handling and interchange capabilities going to be 

(hardware, software, networking, and so on) that will enable (or constrain) optimal models for 

continuing to strengthen government information dissemination to the public? The timeframes to 

consider are: 

• The short-term horizon from the present up to two years; 

• The mid-term horizon from 2-5 years; and 

• The long-term horizon from 5 years out. 

5. What information produced or collected by the government cannot be made publicly available 

under treaties or laws or contractual agreements? Examples to consider include information (a) 

received under foreign exchange agreements; (b) pertaining to confidential personal or business 

records of individuals, commercial firms, or institutions; or (c) pertaining to national security 

matters. How can those safeguards and protections be harmonized in the interests of maximizing 

the information that can be made available to the public on the one hand, while at the same time 

minimizing the risk of illegal or inadvertent disclosure of protected information on the other? 

6. How can the public and private sectors work together more effectively in partnership, 

collaborative, and complementary modes to make government information more easily and costeffectively findable, searchable, retrievable, and deliverable by and to the public, in diverse 

mediums and formats, both "plain vanilla" and highly customized and specialized, than otherwise 

could be accomplished if the two sectors operated independently, in an uncoordinated, or even 

confrontational fashion? What "win-win scenarios" and models are appropriate? 

SPECIFIC ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

1. How can the key information resources management policy concepts be, first, institutionalized in 

appropriate statutes and, second, spelled out in Executive Branch policies such as OMB circulars 

and bulletins, and/or perhaps an Executive Order, with respect to their definitions, scope and 

applicability, policies, agency authorities and responsibilities, and other particulars? The four key 

IRM policy concepts are: 

• Permanent public access to government information; 

• No fee or minimal fee public access to government information (e.g. perhaps 

replacing some document fees with free electronic access on the Internet); 

• Permanent records retention of official agency records; 

• Authentication of official government information; and 

• Preservation of government information to protect against medium or format 

obsolescence, degradation, or destruction. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-12 

Note: OMB Circular A-130, The Management of Federal Information Resources, is 

currently undergoing revision, and although the period for public comment has 

passed, it still may be possible to make recommendations to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).4

2. At the agency level, how can we ensure that (a) internal directives effectively address and 

implement the various legal and procedural requirements implicit in the foregoing key information 

resources management policy concepts, and (b) actual agency practices reflect both the spirit and 

the letter of both the government-wide guidance and internal agency directives? One example is 

by using "best practices" approaches. 

3. How can the "single, one stop service" idea applied to accessing government information, using a 

single, central, authoritative, and comprehensive series of indexes and search engines, be 

institutionalized? This should be done so that users of government information do not have to 

necessarily first know: 

• In what agency (perhaps many levels down), and on which agency web site (perhaps a 

brand new web site, or conversely one which has been dismantled recently) the 

information they are seeking is (or was) housed, recognizing that government 

information is dispersed, fragmented, and compartmentalized all across government in 

all branches and agencies, in quasi-government institutions, in private institutions, and 

elsewhere; 

• On what kind of computer platform the information, if electronic, is based; 

• In what kind of facility, the information is stored, if paper-based, or in microform, 

CD-ROM or other pre-electronic medium or format; 

• Which kind of free or proprietary software may be needed to search for, access, 

retrieve, and download information once located, including the need for special 

training; and 

• In what medium or format the information may be organized, stored, whether, for 

example, in electronic mediums and formats on web sites such as electronic 

publications, electronic databases, bulletin boards, or other electronic configurations, 

or in paper-based, microfiche, CD-ROM, or other pre-electronic medium collections, 

such as stored in office files, on library shelves, in records or archival or museum 

collections, and elsewhere. 

In this regard, the FirstGov and WebGov portal initiatives currently being piloted and 

developed by the NPR Clearinghouse Partnerships group under the aegis of the 

President's Management Council should be investigated, as well as the 

GovernmentConnection.Com initiatives. 

4. Should the government operate parallel, competing programs involving disseminating government 

information products and services to the public, or consolidate programs and services into a single, 

integrated program? 

 

4

 The revision of OMB Circular A-130 was completed during the course of the study. The revised circular is available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a130/a130trans4.html. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, "Management of 

Federal Information Resources," OMB Circular A-130, Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget, November 30, 

2000. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-13 

5. How can the actions contemplated herein be time-phased so that allowance is made for transition 

periods in order to move smoothly from actions that could and should be taken in the short-term 

(perhaps immediately or in the next year), the mid-term (perhaps 2-5 years from now), or in the 

long-term (perhaps further out than 5 years)? 

6. What steps can educational institutions and organizations take, both public and private sector, both 

academic and commercial training companies, take to help bring individuals who do not have the 

requisite level of computer and information literacy skills up to at least a minimal level of 

proficiency so that they can utilize computers and other kinds of information appliances to find 

and retrieve government information? In this regard, what are the opportunities for making greater 

use of distance learning? How information is assimilated from online sources versus how it is 

assimilated from print sources should also be explored? (The Stephen King book "The Plant" 

being made available online in chapter installments is a case in point.) 

7. What actions can the public and private sectors take to help the financially, physically, culturally, 

racially, age and gender, and intellectually disabled and disadvantaged populations to access 

government information more efficiently and cost-effectively? 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-14 

APPENDIX 15. SOME IMPORTANT INFORMATION AGE PARADIGMS SHIFTS 

AND THEIR ASSOCIATED MYTHS, AND REALITIES 

Written by F. Woody Horton, NCLIS Consultant 

PREFATORY NOTE5

The Commission believes that in order for the President, the Congress, citizens, and stakeholder 

groups to make informed judgments as to the soundness of this study's findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations, it would be helpful to first identify some key "Information Age major paradigm 

shifts," some common myths and realities that are associated with each of them, a judgment as to what 

the reality is in each case, and suggestions for exposing the myths. These paradigm shifts, myths, 

realities, and debunking suggestions directly or indirectly shape the nature, the scope, the feasibility, 

and the timing of the reforms recommended in the NCLIS report. 

Some of these paradigm shifts, and their associated myths and realities, are technological in character. 

Others are socio-cultural, economic, political or philosophical. Individually they each pose one or 

more arguable assertions that are endlessly debated. Opposing stakeholders have often already 

polarized their public positions and staked out their turf interests in the halls of Congress, in the fight 

for public opinion in the media, and in the competition for market share. Together, these paradigm 

shifts, myths, and realities make up a formidable tapestry of attitudes and behaviors that are 

influencing the mindset of policy-makers, the media, academicians and researchers, the commercial 

information and communication marketplace, Wall Street, and the individual citizen. 

The Commission has tried to be as objective as possible by playing an honest broker role in bringing 

together the constituencies and the stakeholders in helping to identify these paradigm shifts, myths, 

and realities, and in undertaking the substantial scholarly research task of reviewing the literature and 

talking to experts in the various disciplines. 

Major Paradigm Shifts 

1. The Paradigm Shift. Government information for the public is increasingly and rapidly being 

discontinued in ink-on-paper, microforms, and other pre-electronic formats and mediums, 

and instead being made available in electronic formats and mediums—especially online, 

utilizing the World Wide Web and the Internet. There are both upsides and downsides to 

this initiative. One negative consequence is the erosion of permanent public availability of 

government information. Another dysfunctional consequence is the erosion of the 

government's ability to preserve its information holdings in formats and mediums that will 

remain functional indefinitely, even if the technologies used to create and store the 

information in the first place obsolesce. 

 

5

 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen15.pdf. This appendix was last revised on November 7, 2000. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-15 

The advent of the Internet and the World Wide Web has brought with it the concomitant advantage of 

enabling and encouraging federal agencies to increasingly create, store, transfer, make available and 

accessible their government information products and services in online electronic forms by bringing 

those products and services up on thousands of agency web sites which are directly searchable or 

searchable through portals such as FirstGov.6

 The website is inexorably replacing the pre-electronic 

repositories and depositories of hard copy documents. Currently, both traditional and electronic federal 

agency and federal depository libraries, archives, record centers, reading rooms, and information 

centers exist "side-by-side," but the fraction of the federal government's paper-based data, documents, 

and literature is very rapidly going down while at the same time the fraction of its electronically-based 

holdings are going up. This major paradigm shift is presenting enormous challenges to the established 

federal information infrastructure for housing and disseminating government information to the public. 

The roles, authorities, responsibilities, rights, and privileges of the government, commercial 

information providers, information handling intermediaries and specialists such as librarians, technical 

information specialists, and archival and records specialists, are all shifting and being redefined in 

order to cope with the new information environment. This study recommends various reforms in laws, 

policies, programs, and agency practices to help the President and the Congress, as well as the 

Judiciary, cope with the transition from paper to electrons. 

• The Myth: All of the Federal Government's public information holdings are universally available 

and conveniently accessible on the World Wide Web to everyone—citizens, students, job-seekers, 

government entitlement seekers, businesses, lower levels of government, or other kinds of 

individuals or groups, and they can find, verify the authenticity of the information, and download 

any or all of it easily, quickly, and free of charge, and remain confident that technologies will 

always exist to preserve the information in viable and functioning formats and mediums, so there 

is no longer any need for the government to plan, manage, and control government information, 

nor is there any need any longer for maintaining and preserving pre-electronic mediums and 

formats such as ink-on-paper publications or microfiche, so information in those obsolete 

mediums and formats can be deleted, archived permanently, or destroyed.

• The Reality: Only a fraction of the federal government's total data, document, and literature 

holdings are universally available online, and only a fraction of what is available online is easily 

identifiable, efficiently locatable, economically searchable, and conveniently accessible for 

viewing or downloading from the Web. Moreover, many citizens do not know where to find the 

government information they want and need, even if they are computer literate, know how to "call 

it out," or how to search for and retrieve it. Not all citizens have easy or affordable access to a 

computer or a telephone they can use. Nor are physically, financially, or otherwise disadvantaged 

individuals able to find, afford, or efficiently use such equipment, software, and detailed 

procedures to search for government information because it is often inconveniently formatted, not 

well customized to the special needs of the disadvantaged, or not understandable because of 

presentation barriers. Finally, information technologies are becoming obsolete continuously, thus 

rendering information holdings that were created and are being housed in obsolete technologies 

vulnerable to preservation requirements.

• Debunking the Myth: A careful, comprehensive, and authoritative analysis of just what 

government information is available on the Internet, how it is being searched and retrieved, who is 

using what kinds of information and for what purposes, and similar considerations, is required. For 

example, what classes of publications are available in full text form? How much of it is free on 

government sites and how much is on commercial sites for a fee? For example, very few NTIS 

reports are available for free on the Internet in full text form. There is a substantial amount of 

basic bibliographic information available for free, but most full text reports are on paid 

commercial sties. Can all of this be quantified to NTIS reports, for Superintendent of Documents 

 

6

 Available at http://www.firstgov.gov/. A preliminary analysis of First Gov is available in Appendix 19. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-16 

publications, or for other classes of publications? Based on current trends, how is the picture likely 

to change in the next few years? Based on the amount of content in "all government publications," 

what would it take in terms of initial and ongoing operating cost to put all government 

publications on the Internet? A combination of staff calculations of volume and experts roughing 

out costs could provide some useful estimates. Finally, the concepts of "Permanent Public 

Availability" of government information, and the "Technological Preservation" of government 

information must be statutorily based; Congress should therefore amend an appropriate existing 

law, such as the Paperwork Reduction Act, as quickly as possible for these purposes.

2. The Paradigm Shift: The traditional standards and guidelines for bibliographically 

controlling government information were developed and used by librarians and other 

information professionals before the advent of the Web and the Internet. They are failing 

now because they are not being appropriately modified, updated, and adapted to electronic 

publishing, and/or they are starting to be modified, but are being applied haphazardly and 

ineffectively in the rush to bring volumes of electronic materials up on the Web as quickly as 

possible. 

Hundreds of years of development, testing, and refining traditional bibliographic tools that are applied 

to the creation, production, and publishing of ink-on-paper publications (whether government or not) 

have been put aside in the rush to bring more and more electronic government information materials 

up online. While it is true that substantially more government information is now available to the 

computer literate public than ever before, the problems of searching for this information efficiently 

and effectively are compounded immeasurably because of the failure of agencies to apply traditional 

bibliographic guidelines to organizing and making more accessible materials that were created in 

electronic form in the first place ("born digital" to use the argot of the day). The major functional areas 

of accessioning, cataloging, abstracting, indexing, and related areas are all involved. 

• The Myth: Modern website search engines, such as FirstGov, can find precisely, and only, 

whatever government information is available on federal agency websites that a user needs and 

believes is relevant. This can be done without expensive and time-consuming cataloging, 

abstracting, and indexing by librarians and other information professionals. The information 

databases are accurate, complete, authentic, timely, indexed, cross-indexed, searchable, and the 

information once found, can be delivered in the right format, at the right time, in the right place.

• The Reality: Success in searching for, finding, and utilizing precisely the information a user 

seeks, and only the information a user seeks, is only as good as the quality, the integrity, the 

timeliness and the accuracy of the federal information infrastructure which is searched. 

Haphazardly created and organized source documents and publications inevitably results in 

expensive, fruitless searches, with thousands, tens of thousands, or even millions of "hits," but 

yielding little or no positive results and compounding the frustration and anxiety of searchers who 

are confronted with an even larger information overload problem than they had in the first place. 

• Debunking the Myth: Careful pilot tests must be conducted to evaluate and measure the 

benefit:cost performance ratios of using modern search engines, correlated with varying degrees 

and qualities of bibliographically controlled electronic materials. For example, if one million 

NTIS reports were on the Internet in full text form, how well would a modern search engine 

perform in locating only relevant reports and not identifying irrelevant materials? What would 

such a search engine cost to build and run? What if some of the content is available only as 

scanned images of pages that cannot be searched? What multiplier would have to be used to 

include all government information? If a search is limited to bibliographic, indexing, and 

abstracting material, instead of full text, what happens to costs and search results? 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-17 

3. The Paradigm Shift: Information content is increasingly being severed from its information 

conduit (container), thereby greatly exacerbating the problems of understanding its full 

meaning and significance because its context (or provenance as the historian or scientist 

would say) has been lost. Attributing the information correctly to its true source and origin 

is sometimes impossible, and evaluating its credibility and authenticity is extremely difficult. 

Metaphorically, "information orphans" are increasingly being created with substantial 

burdens and costs to information users. 

More and more information is being put into online databases from which very specific information 

items may be searched for and retrieved "on demand," and "just in time." The traditional and 

conventional way to organizing large quantities of related information was to organize it all into 

discrete filing systems, recordkeeping systems, document collections, and publication depositories, 

which were often program-based, function-based, system-based, etc., and which would be revised and 

updated, often infrequently. However, these conventional information systems are difficult to crosssearch through and retrieve from because they are organized, indexed, searched, and mined in widely 

different ways. This has sometimes been referred to in the literature as the "stovepipe" phenomenon—

vertical systems organization with little or no horizontal search capability. Moreover, even if several 

items from different systems and files were located, it was often impractical or even impossible to 

earmark ("bookmark" to use the electronic term) items located in different systems into the same 

integrated "retrievable capsule." Online databases change all of that. Now many different information 

items from many different "vertical" information files or systems can be efficiently and effectively 

cross-searched and retrieved, and then viewed, downloaded or otherwise customized for delivery in 

whatever medium(s) or format(s) the user requires, economically and just in time, when it is needed. 

However, one "hidden" price to be paid is that the retrieved material is often retrieved without a clear 

indication as to its source, and origin. In short, its context has been lost. Then, when that same item is 

reused, re-communicated, or republished, say in an official government document, the author, if 

challenged, cannot ascertain its authenticity and attest to its reliability. 

• The Myth: Information content, and its source or origin (and therefore context), are always 

inseparable, and users can always easily discern and verify the authenticity of the source, as well 

as understand the context in which the information originally reposed.

• The Reality: There is an increasing danger as more and more agency information is organized in 

the form of online databases to facilitate the ability search, cross-index, and retrieve information, 

that the original source and origin from whence the information came becomes increasingly 

difficult to verify, thus creating the problem of attesting to the authenticity and official status of an 

information item that has been orphaned from its parent. 

• Debunking the Myth: New technical information attribution concepts and technologies, such as 

the Unique Object Identifier, offer the promise of "automatically" imprinting information so that 

its source, origin, and context are not lost when the information is removed from its original locus. 

However, these developments will require strong standards support and meanwhile the problem is 

exacerbated. The federal information community, under the aegis of the CIO Council, should 

ensure that such a development is afforded high priority. 

4. The Paradigm Shift: A recent National Academy of Sciences report says, "information is 

increasingly becoming an event to be viewed or experienced, rather than packaged as an 

artifact to be kept and archived." 

Of all the paradigms discussed herein, this one is perhaps the most fundamental and far-reaching. It 

accounts for a mindset that is becoming pervasive. For example, an MIT professor recently told a 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-18 

library gathering "I haven't been to the library in the last four years," because, she explained, "research 

(in my field) is evolving so quickly that there is no use anymore in publishing in paper." 

In a recent meeting between NCLIS and a government official, a young recent computer science 

graduate, told NCLIS that in his field "everything I need to know is on the web or I can communicate 

with my colleagues on the web so I don't need to research historical information, so I don't see why 

libraries or other government depositories need to keep information for more than a year at the most." 

• The Myth: All of mankind is inexorably moving into a kind of real-time mode whereby the 

"present tense of the human record " is the only thing that will be really important anymore. The 

"past tense or historical record" is increasingly of limited value according to this theory, and will 

ultimately become the province of a few seedy historians keeping dusty electronic artifacts on 

remote Tibetan mountaintops. Sayings such as "learning lessons from the past," and "the past is 

prologue," are passé' in the Internet Age because developments are occurring too swiftly to allow 

time to review past experiences and the history of the human record.

• The Reality: It can be argued that this mindset was behind the Department of Commerce's 

announcement in 1999 that it wanted to close down NTIS and transfer its holdings and operations 

to the Library of Congress. In the public announcement there was a "concession" that information 

should be held for three years, but by inference, no longer. Yet statistics show that nearly twothirds of all requests for NTIS materials are for over materials that are over three years old, and 

one third is for requests for materials that are over 10 years old. This point of view, to the extent 

that it is apparently now beginning to drive government policy, could easily result in the 

dangerous loss of the historical record of the United States. While some scientists in extremely 

fast-moving fields such as computer science may take this view, certainly when it comes to the 

arts, to the humanities, to the social sciences, and even the traditional physical sciences of physics, 

mathematics, and chemistry, the knowledge base of past discoveries is absolutely essential to the 

forward progress of those fields, and the creation of new knowledge. Associated with this 

phenomenon is the increasing pressure to forego permanent records retention in favor of 

temporary records retention, thereby eroding the ability of the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA) to comply with its statutory mandate to preserve the federal record.

• Debunking the Myth: The irony of this situation is that modern electronic information and 

communication technologies are making the mass storage of, the searching for, and the retrieval of 

information from electronic repositories a technically feasible and cost-effective reality. So why, 

in the face of these technological advances, would one even want to "throw everything out that is a 

year or so old" if it can be held efficiently and cost-effectively in electronic storage? Moreover, it 

would not at all be difficult to arrange a controlled pilot test whereby a researcher was given a 

"bench challenge" but his/her access to information more than a year old precluded, while another 

researcher given the same challenge was given access to historical information. The results could 

then be compared. Can the U.S. government really afford to encourage and foster this mindset 

when the risk of a failed policy may well result in the irretrievable loss of the U.S. world 

leadership in science and technology in so many fields, not to mention all of the other disciplines? 

NCLIS admonishes national leaders to make it crystal clear that preservation of the human record 

is absolutely vital to our democracy, lest government officials get the mistaken idea that they can 

forget about yesterday's information with complete impunity. To return to the National Academy 

of Sciences report, NCLIS would amend the statement to read: "information is increasingly 

becoming an event to be viewed or experienced, but information must always be packaged as an 

artifact to be kept and archived in order to preserve mankind's record and hold leaders 

accountable."
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-19 

5. The Paradigm Shift: Information life cycle management authorities and responsibilities 

within departments and agencies are dispersed, fragmented, decentralized, and 

compartmentalized. Internal agency information management continues to be split from 

external agency information management, essentially by two different worlds. Moreover, the 

increasing movement to electronic publishing has exacerbated the problem of agency-wide 

oversight of electronic government information because no single office in the agency has 

clear, overall, lead authority for the life cycle management of both internal and external 

agency data, documents, and literature, although the Chief Information Officer (CIO), the 

public affairs office, and the printing and publishing office all have partial responsibility. 

Information having a life cycle is not a new idea, whether government information or any information 

for that matter. A useful analogue often mentioned is the concept of the product life cycle. That is, in 

the business world, as taught in business schools, a product is "born," "matures," "demand levels off," 

and then customer disinterest sets in and product sales decline and finally the product is taken out of 

production and off the shelves. Another analogue sometimes used is the biological life cycle. That is, 

an organism is born, grows, matures, declines, and eventually dies. 

Applied to the creation, handling, disposition, and archiving of information, the life cycle concept 

follows a similar circular path, which is both endless and continuous. However, the usual starting point 

is when information is first created, whether that is a document, an e-mail message, or anything else, 

regardless of format or medium. One useful portrayal of the steps in the life cycle follows, although 

the authors concede there may be many variations of this graphic: 

Government information is: 

• Step 1: Created and produced (by authors in all agencies, in all branches, at all levels, and in many 

different formats and mediums). 

• Step 2: Cataloged and indexed (metadata tools applied). 

• Step 3: Temporary and permanent availability and entitlement established (ownership and 

disclosure rights of creators, publishers, disseminators, licensees, franchisees). 

• Step 4: Published in the public domain or withheld from disclosure pursuant to a wide variety of 

statutes, internal agency policies, foreign agreements, and so forth. 

• Step 5: Put into files, databases, collections, holdings, and other storage repositories. 

• Step 6: Communicated, disseminated, and distributed. 

• Step 7: Searched for and retrieved (full text, abstracts, key words). 

• Step 8: Used for decision-making and problem solving. 

• Step 9: Archived. 

• Step 10: Re-used over and over again by government officials, journalists, archivists, researchers, 

citizens, and others (information recycled). 

• Step 11: Disposed of (temporarily or permanently).

• Step 12: Expunged or destroyed if permanent retention period exceeded.

• Step 13: Need for new information to replace old information established. 

Obviously the above steps in the Information Life Cycle could be expanded or compressed, depending 

on one's particular purposes. Moreover, there is certainly room for debate has to how we've framed the 

sequence of specific steps or stages, and depicted their inter-relationships, and admittedly rather 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-20 

cryptically defined them. Nor do we mean to imply simply because the steps are schematically 

portrayed as a circle that all steps necessarily always occur iteratively in the same "prescribed" 

sequence. Oftentimes some steps may proceed in parallel, one or more steps may be "leapfrogged," or 

the consequences of dealing with the information in electronic formats and mediums are different than 

those used when the data is in pre-electronic forms. But, for working purposes, notwithstanding these 

caveats, we would like to move forward with our discussion using this twelve-step methodology. 

Perhaps one of the benefits of this paper will be to refine and improve the above construct.

• The Myth: Every step and stage in the information life cycle is completely independent of every 

other step and stage in the life cycle, both those that occurred before it, and those that will occur 

after it. There is no point in trying to link and interconnect the steps and stages in the life cycle 

because trying to specify the precise nature of those links would be so time-consuming and 

expensive that one would spend more time specifying the links than paying attention to the step or 

stage in question. Besides, each step or stage probably involves different people, with different 

skills and different expertise, operating in different divisions and units in the overall organization, 

with different authorities and responsibilities, and different goals and objectives, and all using 

different hardware and software and systems and networks. In short, "why should we mind 

somebody else's business when we can barely manage our own?"

• The Reality: Each step and stage in the information life cycle is interdependent with and on every 

step that preceded it and every step that will occur after it. If one ignores these interdependencies, 

and counter dependencies, one pays the price of recreating information at each stage of the life 

cycle, in a unique and customized format and medium that may or may not harmonize with the 

formats and mediums that preceded that step and will follow it. Many years ago, in the 1950's, the 

concept of Source Data Automation (SDA) was in vogue. But it was a concept many years ahead 

of its time. Essentially this concept was closely linked to the life cycle of information idea. It 

urged information creators (such as authors and publishers) to create information products and 

processes in formats and mediums that could easily and cheaply be converted and be made 

minimally compatible with, if not entirely consistent, to formats and mediums utilized for 

handling the same information later in the life cycle. At that time the pressure to automate 

processes was just beginning, and converting "manual" products and processes, as they were 

called in those days, to computer-assisted products and processes was so great that the SDA 

concept never got very far. But the reality today is that most systems and sub-systems that handle 

information are incompatible and inconsistent, and there is an entire industry "systems integration" 

that has evolved just to help pay the price of our failure to follow the source data automation and 

information life cycle precepts.

• Debunking the Myth: We need to return to the basic precepts of source data automation and life 

cycle management and ensure that they are adequately taken into account when new information 

products and processes are first on the drawing boards. It is too late to deal with the problem once 

products and processes have been designed, developed, tested, and debugged. Then the 

investments are virtually irreversible. To do this, the government needs to strengthen its policies 

and procedures, and demonstrate the practical applicability of the concepts to the bottom line of 

agency budgets and information use efficiency. To that end, revisions are needed in the Paperwork 

Reduction Act and OMB Circular A-130, in particular. Those suggested revisions are dealt with in 

the Commission's final report in greater detail. They are also spelled out in another NCLIS staff 

paper entitled "The Government Information Life Cycle Management Concept."

6. The Paradigm Shift: There appears to be a trend in federal agencies to replace a 

comparatively much more proactive policy to disseminate government information to the 

public, including reaching out to the public to notify them of what was available to them, 

with relatively much more passive policies that shift the burden of knowing what 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-21 

government information exists, then trying to identify it, then find it, and then access it. The 

consequences of this shift in agency stance are far-reaching, especially in terms of 

exacerbating the Digital Divide. 

It is not surprising that as agencies realized the power and efficiency of the web enabling them to 

publish vastly increased quantities of information on their sites (as opposed to utilizing pre-electronic 

formats and mediums such as ink-on-paper and microforms) they rather naturally assumed that they 

had not only, in one fell swoop as it were, satisfied the need to provide access to public information, 

but also simultaneously had disseminated it as well! In short, they shifted the burden of dissemination 

from themselves to the public. This is a complex and difficult policy area, and certainly "the dust has 

not yet settled" on the debates that have, and will continue to occur both within the Administration and 

the Congress on the matter. The policy question is: Does providing electronic access to digital 

document images constitute dissemination within the meaning of the various statutes that provide for 

an agency to dissemination certain of its information holdings to the public? There are arguments on 

both sides. Certainly the agencies have a strong argument that they should not have to duplicate 

electronic accessibility with hard copy dissemination of the same information - - that is absurd. But, at 

the same time, there is a gray policy area in the middle. Dissemination in the pre-electronic era carried 

with it the idea that an agency would make a special effort to ensure that their public information 

products did, indeed, reach their intended audiences, both general and special. This was accomplished 

through the extensive use of distribution and mailing lists that were kept current. But in the electronic 

era, the use of distribution and mailing lists clearly defeats the purpose of broadcasting the 

availability of and accessibility to the information electronically, utilizing the vehicle of the website. 

And the possible use of "cookies" as a device for verifying whether or not a certain information 

product did or did not reach its intended audiences is in many cases at least controversial if not 

downright illegal and unethical. The one exception to this might be where the agency intends that its 

public information be available to all sectors of society, without regard to special, targeted subpopulations (e.g. the disadvantaged). Yet, it is an arguable proposition that all agency public 

information should be disseminated to all sectors of society. It certainly never was in the pre-Internet 

era. Has the mere fact that it can be disseminated in the Internet era changed that? 

• The Myth: Providing access to public information in electronic form on agency websites removes 

the obligation of federal agencies to ensure that the information which they have posted to their 

websites has, indeed, reached its intended audiences. Information dissemination, in short, is a 

passé' concept that has been completely supplanted by electronic information access in the Internet 

era.

• The Reality: Providing access to public information in electronic form on agency websites does 

not remove the obligation of federal agencies to ensure that the information they have posted does 

reach its intended audiences, especially in instances where the sub-population(s) to be reached are 

disadvantaged in some respect. The broadest definition of "disadvantaged" includes minorities, 

senior citizens, school age children, the physically and emotionally disabled, the economically 

disadvantaged, and the computer and information illiterate. It also includes Americans living in 

tribal areas and in relatively inaccessible rural areas remote from normal infrastructure services 

provided urban populations such as electricity, telephones, and so forth.

• Debunking the Myth: The Federal Government must rethink its public information dissemination 

posture in the Internet era, taking into account the disappearance or downgrading of the use of 

distribution and mailing lists, and other tools and techniques, for ensuring that information 

disseminated to the public did, indeed, reach the targeted audience(s).
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-22 

7. The Paradigm Shift: Increasingly, physical libraries and information repositories are being 

replaced with virtual libraries and repositories, but the consequences and implications of 

this shift have not been adequately assessed. 

Libraries have always had to cope with collections composed of a wide mix of mediums and formats 

in which their acquisitions came "housed." Maps, recordings, photographs, special materials for the 

blind and the handicapped, and old manuscripts have been a challenge to libraries for millennia, not 

just centuries. In the middle of the last century the advent of microforms - - microfilm, microfiche, and 

other related formats began to insinuate themselves into the library's collections. Libraries had to begin 

buying a variety of special readers and printers, and set aside special reading rooms devoted to their 

microform collections. When the earliest computers appeared in the late Sixties and early Seventies, 

they began slowly to develop online catalogs and acquire some early online databases, either public 

domain databases or on a commercial subscription basis. CD-ROM's introduction brought with it 

additional complications due to proprietary and more complex search and retrieval technical 

instructions which librarians had to learn and understand before they could train their patrons. Seldom 

did the library budget keep up with the cost of special equipment, special facilities, special training, 

and special (meaning in most cases higher) costs for acquiring, maintaining in peak operating 

condition, upgrading as untold new versions kept reappearing every month, for all of these new 

formats and mediums. The obsolescent technologies were never completely replaceable by the newer 

technologies. That capital investment became a sunk cost. Now, the Internet Age has arrived. More 

and more material is being made available in electronic forms, accessible via websites. 

• The Myth: Many futurists are having a field day predicting that the demise of the physical library 

is "just around the corner," "perhaps a little later," "if not much sooner." These old fashioned 

libraries, these Cassandras predict, will go the way of high button shoes and the surrey with the 

fringe on top, and be replaced by virtual libraries which require nothing more than a desktop or 

laptop to access their holdings since no physical institution of any kind would be required. 

Digitized collections become the name of the game. Anything that isn't digitized is passé'—

somehow second-class in the information world.

• The Reality: It is an economic impossibility to digitize everything. Even the richest endowed 

institutions must make judicious budgetary decisions on what they can afford to digitize based on 

a whole host of considerations, including the needs and wants of their constituents and clienteles, 

the condition of their materials and how much danger certain kinds of materials may be in, and so 

on. "Born digital," many are now saying, is the real answer to the challenge, and we must find the 

means to live with pre-digital and digital mediums for a very long time - -at least many 

generations. 

• Debunking the Myth: Libraries as physical institutions will not disappear for many moons. For 

future generations, they will remain as a repository of multi-media, multi-format, multi-platform 

information handling institutions. Public policies must be shaped to take that reality into account. 

Digitizing everything simply does not make sense, either from a preservation standpoint or from 

an economic standpoint. Moreover, many users of government information, for example, are 

disadvantaged and cannot use electronic materials for reasons cited elsewhere in this paper. 

Libraries as public institutions must never lose sight of the needs of all citizens they serve, not just 

those who happen to be able to afford their services, have easy access to them, and who have the 

requisite degree of computer and information literacy to search for and utilize electronic materials. 

8. The Paradigm Shift: Paperwork is being compounded by "Electronwork" which can be even 

more onerous and burdensome and costly than paperwork ever was. While the government 

is moving to replace paper-based public transactions with the government with electronicbased systems, pursuant to the Government Paperwork Elimination Act and similar 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-23 

legislation, there is a more or less blind assumption that "electrons are always better than 

paper." Although this controversy is not unique to this study's core objectives, nevertheless 

NCLIS has seen fit to alert the President and the Congress to a potential problem in the 

future. 

While most people seem to agree that paper will never disappear, even at the height of the electronic 

information age. As has been pointed out many times, desktop printers have proliferated at a rate that 

seems to have kept pace with the proliferation of desktop computers and modem connectivity. Big 

central government printing plants like the Government Printing Office may be becoming the 

dinosaurs of the Information Age, but the paper and pulp industries do not seem frightened at the 

prospect of paper ever disappearing, even as laser printing supplants ink printing. Quite to the 

contrary! It can be argued that all that has really happened is that the burden of printing has shifted 

from the front end of the information life cycle when publishers' had to worry about massive print 

runs, to the middle of the cycle when Internet users download documents from the web and print them 

on their local printers. Gradually it is dawning on people that "Electronwork" can be far more 

insidious than paperwork ever was! That is to say, the burdens and costs of working in electronic 

formats and mediums, and on electronic platforms, can be far more onerous than pre-electronic 

formats and mediums. In short, paper is not necessarily "all bad," and there are many instances where 

paper is still the preferred medium. The Government Paperwork Elimination Act and the Paperwork 

Reduction Act both recognize that, but the recognition needs to be translated into more concrete 

operational guidance for federal agencies. 

• The Myth: Paper formats and mediums are all bad; they should all be replaced as quickly as 

possible, depending primarily on economic considerations. The sooner we can shift from paper 

and microforms to electronic mediums and formats, the better. Only then will we be able to deal 

meaningfully with information preservation and permanent public availability effectively. Paperbased systems are almost always far slower, far more costly, and far more inefficient than are 

electron-based systems.

• The Reality: A family of pre-electronic and electronic information handling formats and mediums 

is a far more realistic approach for the government to take than a monolithic policy of "everything 

must go electronic tomorrow." Many citizens and disadvantaged populations are simply are not 

equipped to deal with computers or telecommunications connectivity. They either live in remote 

rural areas, are too poor to afford computers and modems, do not know anyone who has such 

capabilities, and are so computer and information literate that they do not even know how to find 

help. Moreover, history has demonstrated that as new mediums are invented and begin to spread 

into general use, they nearly always take their place side-by-side with existing mediums. This was 

true of radio when television came along, the telephone when faxes came into use, and broadcast 

when cable was invented. All of these mediums are still in use; we've simply added one more 

medium, albeit an extremely powerful one, to the existing family of mediums. Each medium has 

its own benefit:cost ratio depending on many variables, including convenience, urgency, 

capabilities of both senders and receivers (not just senders), cost, need for confidentiality, and so 

forth. Moreover, even many highly computer and information literate individuals who could 

convert to using the Internet almost exclusively, prefer to utilize all available mediums, even 

paper, couriers, and conversation over morning coffee!

• Debunking the Myth: Dissemination of government information to the public laws, policies, and 

programs must take into account the need for federal agencies to offer a family of mediums and 

formats for dealing with all segments of society. Users of government information are an 

extremely diverse class, ranging from the highly computer and information literate at the one 

extreme, to the computer and information illiterate at the other, including disadvantaged 

individuals from an economic, physical, or minority status standpoint. Individual laws, policies, 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-24 

guidelines, and programs should be reviewed to ensure that government is not putting all of its 

eggs into the Internet basket, so to speak. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-25 

APPENDIX 16. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT 

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT: 

The Mission, the Needs, the Operational Requirements, and the Roles

Written by F. Woody Horton, NCLIS Consultant 

INTRODUCTION7

Many of the most important findings of the Commission's four panels, as well as a reading of the 

dozens of prior studies that have been undertaken in the last several decades aimed at improving the 

management of government information, have one common, underlying thread. That thread is the need 

to modernize and put into operation the concept government information life cycle management as a 

practical computer-assisted information handling tool that meets the full-range of government 

information life cycle needs by all agencies, by all branches, and by all government officials. 

Disseminating government information is only one stage in the government information life cycle. 

Moreover, when it is undertaken, how it is undertaken, and, ultimately, how successfully it is 

accomplished, is dependent on, and inseparable from how effectively and efficiently the preceding 

steps in the life cycle have been accomplished. Additionally, how effectively it is accomplished will 

impact how successful the following stages of the life cycle are, including reuse, storage and retrieval, 

archiving, and permanent disposition. In short, information dissemination is not some kind of 

"afterthought" task that occurs when everything is else is finished and the janitor is ready to turn out 

the lights. Information dissemination is an integral element of Information Resources Management 

(IRM), and must be planned, budgeted, managed, and controlled from the very beginning stages of 

creating new information products or services. 

In the Commission's view, what has been "missing" from the public debates surrounding how to 

improve both internal and external (public) government information resources management is a clear 

statement of what the federal government's mission is when it comes to the public information life 

cycle, what the specific needs of agencies and officials are, what the operational requirements of an 

information resources management system are, and what the roles of the public and private sectors 

might be in planning, designing, developing, testing, and implementing such a system. 

This "white paper" endeavors to put forward one approach to meeting all of these needs, for public 

review and comment. Ultimately, the Commission will include the substance of the paper's contents in 

the form of one or more conclusions and recommendations, in its final report to the President and the 

Congress, due December 15, 2000. There is therefore very little time to try and upgrade the quality of 

the contents herein to an acceptable minimal level of defensible logic for that purpose. 

BACKGROUND 

Information, whether government information or any information for that matter, having a life cycle is 

not a new idea. A useful analogue often mentioned is the concept of the product life cycle. That is, in 

 

7

 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen16.pdf. This appendix was last revised on October 13, 2000. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-26 

the business world, as taught in business schools, a product is "born," "matures," "demand levels off," 

and then customer disinterest sets in and product sales decline and finally the product is taken out of 

production and off the shelves. Another analogue sometimes used is the biological life cycle. That is, 

an organism is born, grows, matures, declines, and eventually dies. 

Applied to the creation, handling, disposition, and archiving of information, the life cycle concept 

follows a similar circular path, which is both endless and continuous. However, the usual starting point 

is when information is first created, whether that is a document, an e-mail message, or anything else, 

regardless of format or medium. One useful portrayal of the steps in the life cycle follows, although 

the authors concede there may be many variations of this graphic: 

Government information is: 

• Step 1: Created and produced (by authors in all agencies, in all branches, at all levels, and in many 

different formats and mediums). 

• Step 2: Cataloged and indexed (metadata tools applied). 

• Step 3: Temporary and permanent availability and entitlement established (ownership and 

disclosure rights of creators, publishers, disseminators, licensees, franchisees). 

• Step 4: Published in the public domain or withheld from disclosure pursuant to a wide variety of 

statutes, internal agency policies, foreign agreements, and so forth. 

• Step 5: Put into files, databases, collections, holdings, and other storage repositories. 

• Step 6: Communicated, disseminated, and distributed. 

• Step 7: Searched for and retrieved (full text, abstracts, key words). 

• Step 8: Used for decision-making and problem solving. 

• Step 9: Archived. 

• Step 10: Re-used over and over again by government officials, journalists, archivists, researchers, 

citizens, and others (information recycled). 

• Step 11: Disposed of (temporarily or permanently).

• Step 12: Expunged or destroyed if permanent retention period exceeded.

• Step 13: Need for new information to replace old information established. 

Figure 1 is a graphic of the information life cycle. 

Obviously the above steps in the Information Life Cycle could be expanded or compressed, depending 

on one's particular purposes. Moreover, there is certainly room for debate has to how we've framed the 

sequence of specific steps or stages, and depicted their inter-relationships, and admittedly rather 

cryptically defined them. Nor do we mean to imply simply because the steps are schematically 

portrayed as a circle that all steps necessarily always occur iteratively in the same "prescribed" 

sequence. Oftentimes some steps may proceed in parallel, one or more steps may be "leapfrogged," or 

the consequences of dealing with the information in electronic formats and mediums are different than 

those used when the data is in pre-electronic forms. But, for working purposes, notwithstanding these 

caveats, we would like to move forward with our discussion using this twelve-step methodology. 

Perhaps one of the benefits of this paper will be to refine and improve the above construct. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-27 

THE MISSION AND THE NEEDS 

Next, what is the federal government's mission when it comes to government information? Simply 

stated, the Commission believes that government has an obligation to maximize its information flows 

and holdings for the benefit of the public, including: individual citizens, academic and scientific 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-28 

research, for-profit business opportunities, state and local governments, and other sectors of the 

society. 

In a word, government information is absolutely essential to a free and open democracy, and the 

public has a right to government information. The government should: 

1. Maximize the availability of its information to the public. 

2. Minimize information withheld from the public, subject to appropriate statutory safeguards and 

restrictions relating to national security, privacy, confidentiality, and so forth. 

3. Permit easy, fair, and equitable access to government information. 

4. Ensure the integrity, authenticity, and preservation of its information. 

5. Simplify searching for government information across agency websites, files, and other sources 

and storage facilities for its data, documents, and literature. 

6. Work together with the private sector in partnership arrangements that encourage business to assist 

government in searching for, retrieving, using, and archiving its knowledge holdings. 

There is one need that is paramount: To create a comprehensive government information resources 

management system that makes it efficient, cost-effective, and economical for information authors 

to satisfy as many operational requirements as possible when their information is first created. 

THE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS 

Modern information technologies enable the government to manage its information life cycle needs in 

a highly efficient manner, but unfortunately information requirements are currently addressed in 

piecemeal fashion without any overall unifying management framework. Government must: 

1. Develop the operational requirements for an information resources management system at each 

stage of the information life cycle. 

2. Maximize the number of requirements that can be satisfied when information is first created, but 

allowing entry into the information life cycle at any point later in the cycle. 

3. Afford the three branches, and their respective agency entities in each branch, the policy authority 

and flexibility to customize their own unique operational requirements in lieu of being forced to 

utilize a "one size fits all" policy. 

4. Assign authority and responsibility for the overall leadership and coordination of the design, 

development, testing, and implementation of pilot tests of an information resources management 

system in the Executive Office of the President, but with co-equal participation by representatives 

of the other two branches. 

5. Allow 18-24 months for the design, development, and testing period to ensure adequate time for 

consideration of not just the technical, but the organizational, procedural, policy, and other 

considerations that inevitably will attend such a major undertaking. 

6. Utilize private sector contractors to the maximum extent to work with government in a partnership 

mode to plan, implement and control the undertaking. 

7. Periodically report progress and problems to the President, the Congress, and the Judicial Branch, 

as well as to the citizenry. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-29 

THE INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (IRMS) 

The Information Resources Management System (IRMS) must be built on the following principles: 

1. Both agency internal (for official use) and agency external (public use) information resources must 

be included in the system because they are inseparably inter-related, and decisions made in one 

domain inevitably affect the other domain, at each stage of the information life cycle. 

2. An Information Life Cycle Manager (ILCM) software package should, ideally, be developed 

based on three levels of "profiles:" government-wide, agency level, and individual official level. 

Each profile would be comprised of a customized to a set of decision option choices based on the 

most common and important types of communications an agency official initiates. These 

"profiles" will be developed taking into account all three levels of requirements, and designed in 

such a way so that a series of "defaults" can be pre-determined, and pre-programmed (but later 

changed if necessary) for each decision option. A full menu of decision option choices would be 

presented as prompts when the software module is first initialized and loaded (see illustrative 

decision options below). The "electronic envelope" concept would then be utilized for 

standardizing the formats for capturing and identifying the data values unique to each 

communication.8

 The "electronic envelope" is a way of standardizing and automating format rules 

for different kinds of communications with different profiles. In this way, the number of redundant 

and repetitive decisions that must be made each time a piece of correspondence, an e-mail 

message, a posting to an online database, some kind of government-public electronic filing 

transaction, or another kind of information instrument, is created by the same sender. For 

example, ideally, such a profile for, let us say, an e-mail message created by a senior agency 

official would "instruct" the ILCM software to answer the following kinds of decision (menu 

choice) options with a "yes" or "no"; these are illustrative examples at this point, and obviously 

the precise menu choice options, as well as the selection of the preferred default for each set of 

choice options, would be worked out for each official based on the three levels of requirements: 

government-wide, agency, and individual official:

• If you are either creating new information, or acting upon information received from 

someone else, is the information purely for personal use (the default will normally be set 

as "no")? 

• Can the information be shared with others within the author's immediate office (the 

default will usually be "yes")? 

• Can the information be shared more broadly, within the agency in general (the menu 

choices might be "yes," "no," and "perhaps" with allowable conditions specified, such as a 

draft that the author may not be ready to share publicly)? 

• Is the information sharable with the public; that is, is it in the public domain (the default 

will normally be "yes")? 

• If the information is not in the public domain, which statute(s) governs its exemption or 

exclusion (e.g. FOIA, Privacy Act, national security laws, etc. (the menu choices would 

usually involve one, but could involve more than one choice)? 

• If the information is in the public domain, should a GILS record be created (the default 

will usually be "yes")? 

 

8 The electronic envelope concept was first espoused by William H. Price in an article entitled "The Electronic Envelope," 

Information Management Review (IMR), Vol. 2, no. 2 (Fall 1986), pp 43-53. It is available at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/elecenv.html.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-30 

• If the information is in the public domain, should an official agency record be created (the 

default will normally be set as "yes", but conceivably a non-record choice, such as a 

convenience copy of an already existing record, might result in a "no" choice)? 

• If an official agency record is created, what is the applicable retention schedule and what 

is the retention period (each individual and office is normally provided with a limited 

number of applicable program-based schedules from which the choice is made)? 

• Should the information be permanently publicly available (the menu choices could 

conceivably be partly based on NARA appraisal guidelines, partly on GPO FDLP 

guidelines, partly on NTIS guidelines if the information is STI, and partly on agency 

policies)? 

• Should the information be furnished to a central federal information depository or 

clearinghouse for redistribution, such as NTIS, GPO, the Library of Congress, a national 

library, or other institution or program (the default may include distribution to more than 

one repository or clearinghouse)? 

• How will provision be made for the information's description and content definition and 

access tools, including, for example, title, data, issuing office, category and indexing 

terms, and so forth? 

• How will authentication of the information be ensured (the menu choices here will be 

partly government-wide based, and partly agency based)? 

• How will the information be preserved in the event of obsolescing formats and mediums 

(the menu choices may require the author to seek technical consultation from within the 

agency)? 

• If the information is to be added to an existing database, for example, a bibliographic, 

numeric, or statistical database of some kind, is the "standing profile" adequate or should 

it be modified? 

• If the information is a transaction occurring between government and the public within the 

context of an established electronic filing system, is the "standing profile" adequate or 

should it be modified? 

3. Officials will be enabled to enter the ILCM at any stage of the information's life cycle, not just at 

the time the information instrument is first created. Thus, when a revision to an existing document 

or publication is created, there may be a need to revise one or more profiles because the menu 

choice may change, or the default may change. For example, if a records retention schedule is 

changed because of a change in an official agency record medium or format, a profile (meaning a 

menu choice option and/or the default selection to a certain preferred option) may need to be 

changed. 

4. Agencies should be allowed to customize their profiles to the unique needs, missions, authorities, 

and responsibilities. For example, if internal reviews, clearances and concurrences are an 

important step, perhaps an additional prompt might be "if this is a draft message or memorandum, 

default to immediate office head only for review and approval," or, "default to immediate office 

head and division chief." 

5. Profiles will need to be created for each of the major types of information transactions. For 

example, one profile might deal exclusively with routine e-mail messages, another for public 

domain publications, another for internal agency memoranda, another for external memoranda 

going to other agencies or EOP, another for Congressional correspondence, another for the media, 

and so on. There is a trade off between how many profiles that would be required and the burden 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-31 

of having to change default settings because of variations in information transaction types. There 

is a point of diminishing returns, for example, when the burden of changing so many default 

settings in a profile outweighs the benefits that would accrue if a separate profile were established 

for a commonly occurring transaction. 

6. If a FirstGov were in place and effectively operating as a major government-wide portal, then 

obviously the agency information resource entity should be identified and cataloged, and metadata 

applied to it (such as a GILS record) in such a way as to facilitate "transparent" indexing, 

abstracting, and tagging to facilitate ready location and ease of retrieval. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-32 

APPENDIX 17. AN INVITED RETROSPECTIVE APPRAISAL OF THE 1982 NCLIS 

PUBLIC SECTOR/PRIVATE SECTOR TASK FORCE REPORT 

Note: NCLIS invited Professor Emeritus Robert M. Hayes, who chaired the 1982 

NCLIS Public Sector/Private Sector Task Force, to look back at the findings, 

conclusions, and recommendations made by his Task Force in the light of very 

dramatic interim developments. Most importantly, the impacts of the World Wide 

Web and the Internet are widely acknowledged to be nothing less than revolutionary. 

He was asked to assess whether or not those interim events, and the increasingly Webbased information handling environment, change in any significant way, in his view, 

those 1982 findings and recommendations. This is his report. 

NCLIS is republishing the 1982 report because of its enduring and timely value, and a 

limited number of copies will be available to study participants. 

Written by Robert M. Hayes, Professor Emeritus, Department of Library and 

Information Science, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA); Chairperson of 

the NCLIS Public Sector/Private Sector Task Force; and Member, NCLIS Group of 

Experts for This Assessment 

THE PRIMARY ISSUES9

The Report of the NCLIS Public Sector/Private Sector Task Force identified two primary issues: 

1. The crucial importance of information resources, products, and services in our economy and 

society. 

2. The conflicting views concerning the proper role of government in providing those information 

resources, products, and services. 

Everything that has happened in the twenty years since that Report has, without question, confirmed 

the first issue. With respect to the second issue, probably there continue to be conflicting views 

concerning the "proper role of government", but I think the focus of that issue has shifted as the 

political context has shifted and repeatedly has done so. In that respect, the technological 

developments may affect the focus of attention but do not change the fundamental debate. 

THE PRINCIPLES 

The Report presented a set of seven principles: 

Principle 1. The Federal government should take a leadership role in creating a framework that 

would facilitate the development and foster the use of information products and services. 

 

9

 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen17.pdf. This appendix was last revised on August 15, 2000. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-33 

The "leadership" is perhaps best represented by the development of the Internet. I think everyone will 

agree that it was a direct result of U.S. governmental investment in creating the basic structure, 

through ARPANET and the NSF super-computer network. It must be said that the pace in explosion of 

the Internet during the 90s, from the rather limited and essentially academic growth of the late 80s 

(which was exponential, yes, but nothing like we have experienced) to the current rate of commercial 

growth has been almost unbelievable. 

Among the important policy decisions by the federal government which clearly has fostered the 

development and use of electronic information products and services was the Telecommunications 

Act and its provisions to subsidize telecommunications access for the nation's libraries, educational 

institutions, and health delivery agencies. Equity of access, so that geographic location and economic 

status are not insurmountable barriers, has been made a matter of government policy 

But there has been another arena in which the U.S. government has taken a position of leadership that 

in some respects is of even more fundamental importance. It is in the replacement of the SIC code for 

classification of industry data to the NAICS at least in part in recognition of the growing importance 

of the "information sector" of the economy. By doing so, the federal government has provided real 

encouragement to investment because now the data will more clearly show the magnitude of that 

investment and the effect of it on the economy. 

In the same vein, though slightly different in the nature of its leadership role is the policy position of 

the federal government with respect to capitalizing information investments. In a Los Angeles Times 

article of Friday, October 29, 1999, it was reported that, "As part of its periodic update of its methods, 

the Commerce Department redefined software as an investment, something of value in its own right 

and thus counting toward economic output." It went on to say, "For last year alone, the refiguring 

added about $250 billion to estimates of total economic output. Fully two-thirds of that was due to the 

redefinition of software." Now, that is getting somewhere! Later, I will comment further on the 

broader implications of this kind of policy. My hope (as I will try to identify) is that this principle of 

support to investment will be extended to other than simply investment in software. 

Principle 2. The Federal government should establish and enforce policies and procedures that 

encourage, and do not discourage, investment by the private sector in the development and use 

of information products and services. 

This principle is certainly reflected in the example of federal policy with respect to information 

investment already alluded to above. By stating, as a policy, that investment in "information resources, 

products, and services" should be treated precisely that way, as an investment, the federal government, 

at least in principle, is encouraging and not discouraging such investment. It is certainly a most 

tangible means of doing so. 

Principle 3. The Federal government should not provide information products and services in 

commerce except when there are compelling reasons to do so, and then only when it protects 

the private sector's every opportunity to assume the function(s) commercially. 

The related recommendations are to be considered as integral parts of this principle, since they 

embody the procedures for determining that there indeed are "compelling reasons" for the 

government to provide services in commerce: 

In my view, this principle is among the most important contributions of the PS/PS Task Force Report. 

The federal government should not put itself in the position of commercial information distribution but 

should leave that to the private sector, "unless there are compelling reasons for it to do so". One clear 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-34 

example of a compelling reason is the nation's health, and the Congressional mandate that NLM 

should engage in active distribution of medical-related information is consistent with that principle. 

Furthermore, it in no way precludes the private sector from adding value to NLM information 

products, and I personally know of many companies that have done just that. 

 

Looking at that principle in the context of developments in the two decades since the PS/PS Task 

Force Report, one of the most remarkable things that happened during the 1980s was the President's 

Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (the "Grace Commission"). For some strange, unaccountable 

reason, it adopted the position that the federal government should actively get into commercial 

activities, in every area of government, as the means for funding government operations and with the 

identified objective to replace taxation as the source of funding, in fact. I cannot conceive of anything 

that would be more destructive of the private sector than for the government to "get into the business" 

of doing anything. 

Leaving that bit of history aside, though, have the technological developments of the past twenty years 

changed the first part of this principle in any way? Clearly not. If anything, they have made it easier 

for the government to conform to the intent of the principle. There are now many means, through the 

Internet especially, for the private sector to fill the needs in regions of the country and for groups of 

persons that might not in the past been well served without government intervention in the 

marketplace. 

In this respect, I return to the leadership of the federal government in the policy of equitable access to 

telecommunications, as embodied in the Telecommunications Act and its provisions to subsidize the 

nation's libraries, educational institutions, and health care delivery agencies in access to basic 

telecommunications services, the Internet being simply one example. Such subsidy clearly makes it 

feasible for the private sector to meet needs at prices that can be afforded. 

Having said all of that, I suspect that this principle may underlie some of the current concerns of 

NCLIS. The role of agencies such as NTIS become ambivalent when viewed in the context of this 

principle. Might not the activities of NTIS be better performed by private sector companies? The 

problem is that, without NTIS, the basis for private sector entry would become so marginal as to 

preclude investment by any company. It would simply be too difficult for any private sector company 

to perform the role of NTIS in assembly of the basic data. That role for NTIS is necessary for 

governmental management of the results of its programs and for distribution of them for governmental 

purposes. Therefore, in my view continuation of NTIS in that role is totally consistent with this 

principle. 

The ambivalence appears when the role of NTIS in distribution becomes important. Now, that 

ambivalence was present during the PS/PS Task Force discussions, with specific reference to NTIS, 

which were at a time when electronic distribution via the Internet was discussed as feasible but had not 

assumed the importance it now has. Assuming NTIS were to continue in its role as the central manager 

of access to governmental scientific and technical report, should it play a role in distribution? In my 

personal view, clearly YES, in the same way that the Department of Commerce distributes Statistical 

Abstract of the United States. But the objective in doing so should be to make the government 

information readily available to all who want access to it (such as individuals, like me). But beyond 

that, the objective is to encourage private sector companies to add value to those data, by repackaging, by producing products that are tailored to specific markets, etc. 

The point as far as the PS/PS Task Force was concerned, though, is that two groups of institutions 

(libraries and private sector information agencies), taken together, provide the best means for ensuring 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-35 

public access to government information. On the one hand, use of libraries, especially public and 

academic libraries, ensures that "ability to pay" does not raise barriers which effectively deny access to 

information. On the other hand, the use of private sector organizations, in the business of providing 

information services, ensures that individual freedom and initiative will be dedicated to developing 

and marketing a multiplicity of information services whose value is determined by the purchasers 

rather than by government. The principles and recommendations emphasize the importance of using 

this balance of means for access, in contrast to creating new agencies to do so. Everything that has 

happened for the past twenty years, with respect to technological developments in particular, confirms 

that this combination indeed is effective. 

Principle 4. The Federal government, when it uses, reproduces, or distributes information 

available from the private sector as part of an information resource, product, or service, must 

assure that the property rights of the private sector sources are adequately protected. 

The problem with which this principle was intended to deal was the potential that private sector data 

might, inadvertently or perhaps even by design, become incorporated into governmentally supplied 

information with the result that the property rights might be diluted. 

Among all of the principles (at least among those I've reviewed to this point), this may be the one that 

has been most affected by technological developments over the past twenty years. One need merely 

look at the controversy over Napster to see the problem. I don't think effects of technology change the 

intent of the principle, but they certainly complicate the reality. The potential for inadvertent inclusion 

of electronic material under copyright is very real. 

The problem, though, should not arise if we are dealing with deliberate use of copyrighted material. I 

know that in non-governmental contexts, responsible agencies, such as libraries, are very aware of the 

necessity of protecting private rights. As the nation's libraries advance in the development of "digital 

libraries", they are doing so with the utmost care with respect to private rights. I think the principle 

continues to be valid as a warning to federal agencies that they should operate with equal attention to 

individual rights. 

Principle 5. The Federal government should make governmentally distributable information 

openly available in readily reproducible form, without any constraints on subsequent use. 

With respect to Principle 5, the U.S. federal government is now actively distributing "information 

from government activities" through the Internet as well as through CD-ROMs. Census for the year 

2000, for example, may well be distributed primarily in electronic form, with print serving only 

archival purposes. (See "U.S. counting on Web to be census source; Bureau plans to post most of its 

2000 enumeration data on the Internet. Switch from paper to hypertext raises information issues", Los 

Angeles Times, Sunday, November 15, 1998, Home Edition, Section A.) The Library of Congress has 

launched an extensive means for access to its collections and activities. The ERIC system is now 

actively disseminating its materials through the Internet. The Department of Commerce distributes 

Statistical Abstract of the United States both online through the Internet and on CD-ROM. I could go 

on and on but the point is clear. This principle has been heartily endorsed by reality if not by policy. 

Principle 6. The Federal government should set pricing policies for distributing information 

products or services that reflect the true cost of access and/or reproduction, any specific prices 

to be subject to review by an independent authority. 

This principle is also of exceptional importance. To be specific, the intent was not only that the price 

should "reflect the true costs for access and/or reproduction" but more to the point that it should not be 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-36 

set to recover the costs in producing or assembling the information. Now, I must record that I am 

expressing my own understanding, my own interpretation, and my own views. There may well have 

been members of the PS/PS Task Force that were ready or even desired to have the price set at 

"market". But the wording was based on the view that the price should be set to cover only the costs of 

making the information available. 

Principle 7. The Federal government should actively use existing mechanisms, such as the 

libraries of the country, as primary channels for making governmentally distributable 

information available to the public. 

I suspect that this principle may be another part of the reason for the current concerns of the NCLIS. 

The particular example that the PS/PS Task Force had in mind was the Depository Library program, in 

fact. I think there have been attempts to eliminate that program, and to do so would be totally counter 

to the intent of this principle. 

THE RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Report presented a set of twenty-seven recommendations 

Recommendation #1. Provide an environment that will enhance the competitive forces of the 

private sector, so that the market mechanisms can be effective in allocating resources in the 

use of information and in directing innovation into market determined areas. 

Everything I have seen, at least for the decade of the 90s, confirm the picture of a thriving competitive, 

private, market-based sector for the information economy. Federal policies clearly have been effective 

in every respect, including increasing use of information and innovation in development of products. 

Recommendation #2. Affirm the applicability of the First Amendment to information products 

and services. 

Clearly, the Internet has raised many First Amendment issues. Congressional efforts to impose means 

for censorship were stopped by the courts based on First Amendment arguments. The view of the 

PS/PS Task Force was precisely that the First Amendment should not be limited to "the press" (taken 

in some limited sense) but should encompass other means for information distribution, such as the 

Internet (which was explicit in the discussions). As an ardent believer in the importance of First 

Amendment imperatives, I continue to endorse this principle. 

Recommendation #3. Encourage Congress to be consistent in the language used and in the 

application of principles relating to information products and services, such as those identified 

in this Report, when it formulates legislation and when it exercises its oversight role. 

Frankly, I do not recall the precise reasons that the PS/PS Task Force considered this to be worthy of 

recommendation. Looking at it now, it really is "preaching", and I would be inclined to eliminate it. 

Recommendation #4. Encourage government agencies to utilize the most efficient 

(information) technologies. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-37 

This too is "preaching", this time to the Executive Branch. I think that the PS/PS Task Force objective 

was to urge that those agencies should be in the forefront of use of the information technologies and 

not simply in the support to development of them. Again, I would be inclined to eliminate it. 

Recommendation #5. Encourage the setting and use of voluntary standards that will not inhibit 

the further development of innovative information products and services. 

The debate in the PS/PS Task Force on this topic was intense. Standards were viewed with great 

ambivalence. On the one hand, clearly they foster development by creating a framework on which 

products can be inter-related without concern about compatibility. On the other hand, they can also 

restrict creativity. The intent of this recommendation was to identify the balance between these two 

concerns but to do so in a way that, if anything, put greater emphasis on setting standards. Has this 

changed by the technological developments of the past twenty years? I think not. The balance still 

must be maintained but standards still are the means by which products can be inter-related. 

Recommendation #6. Encourage and support educational programs that provide the 

professional skills needed to further the development and use of information as an economic 

and social resource. 

It is clear that this recommendation continues to have dramatic importance. From all of the reports 

from the information industries, there is a shortage of qualified persons for employment. The recent 

expansion of the basis for hiring foreign workers with technological skills clearly is based on the 

perception that there are needs that are not being met. Beyond that, there are needs is preparing 

managers in the use of information resources. 

Recommendation #7. Encourage and support both basic and applied research in library and 

information science. 

I suppose that this recommendation were blatantly self-serving, but I think it is consistent with 

Recommendation #6. The facts are that financial support for research in the specific arena of "library 

and information science" has declined in the past two decades, and I think the loss is a serious 

problem. 

Recommendation #8. Encourage and support statistical programs and related research to 

provide the data needed to deal with information policy issues. 

I think that the shift from SIC to NAICS coding represents exactly what the PS/PS Task Force had in 

mind. Prior statistics have grievously under-estimated the magnitude of the information sector of the 

economy, and by doing so have meant that policy decisions in both the legislative and executive 

branches have been based on inaccurate picture of the effect of those policies. Now, while the current 

statistical programs have made some steps in the direction of improved reporting, there is still much 

that needs to be done. To me, this is therefore one of the most important recommendations. 

Recommendation #9. Conduct a periodic economic assessment of the impact of Federal 

government information products and services. 

Recommendation #10. Encourage Federal agencies to regard the dissemination of information, 

especially through the mechanisms of the private sector (both for profit and not for profit), as a 

high priority responsibility. 

I think that these recommendations are valid and even self-evident. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-38 

Recommendation #11. Identify and evaluate alternatives to existing Federal information 

dissemination mechanisms. 

Recommendation #12. Develop and support the use of libraries as active means for access to 

governmental information by the public. 

As are these. 

Recommendation #13. Identify and eliminate legal and regulatory barriers to the introduction 

of new information products and services. 

Frankly, I'm not sure what barriers the PS/PS Task Force had in mind in making this recommendation. 

But an example that comes to mind is the change in policy concerning capitalization of software. In 

my view that should be extended to other kinds of information investments (such as in databases). 

Now, these may not represent "barriers" so much as accounting policies that in the past treated 

investments in information as parts of "goodwill" in assessing the value of companies. By doing so, 

they in effect debased the currency for measuring the return on such investments. There may be other 

examples that can be brought to mind. But whether so or not, I think this recommendation still has 

value. In fact, I would put greater stress upon the issue of proper evaluation of investment in 

"intangibles" such as "information", as my illustration here are intended to highlight. 

In passing, I want to comment on one of the debates that occurred during the discussions of the PS/PS 

Task Force. It concerned whether "information" should be regarded as a "resource" and as a "capital 

investment". My view was that it clearly was a resource and an investment, at the least for companies 

in the information industries. But there were some on the Task Force who vociferously argued against 

that position, claiming that to do so would give it too much importance. They said, in so many words, 

"Information is a support to decision-making, not an investment." Certainly that position was correct if 

it was set in the context of management decision-making. But in the context of information product 

development, it is in my view totally incorrect. The database of an ISI or an OCLC is as much a 

capital investment, necessary for production of information products and services, as is a machine tool 

in Ford or General Motors, necessary for production of automobiles. Yet today, the information 

investment is always expensed but the machine tool investment is almost always capitalized. 

Recommendation #14. Encourage private enterprise to "add value" to government information 

(i.e., to re-package it, provide further processing services, and otherwise enhance the 

information so that it can be sold at a profit). 

Of all the recommendations, it seems to me that this one gets to the heart in resolution of the issues 

with which the PS/PS Task Force was concerned. Specifically, the distribution of government 

information by the government should not be considered as competition (assuming that the principles 

and recommendations in that respect are followed) but as opportunity. It provides the private sector 

with the opportunity to utilize that information, to develop their own products and services based on it 

and with the expectation that the government will continue to provide the information, not as a 

competitor but as a source. I continue heartily to endorse this principle. 

Recommendation #15. Provide incentives to existing organizations, such as libraries and 

bookstores that will encourage them to expand their activities in dissemination of 

governmentally distributable information. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-39 

The Depository Library program represented the precise case in point for this recommendation. The 

point is that libraries, in particular, provide the "safety-net" for those who do not have the economic 

resources to pay for what can be exceptionally expensive private sector added-value services. When 

the general public may not be able to afford those private sector services, they should still have access 

to the governmental data on which those value-added services are based. It is this objective to which 

this recommendation refers. Now, does the Internet reduce the importance of this recommendation? I 

think not. If anything, it enhances it, since the library again serves as the safety net both for access to 

the government information and, more importantly, for access to the professional assistance in support 

of evaluation and use of it. 

Recommendation #16. Establish procedures which will create a realistic opportunity for 

private sector involvement in the planning process for government information activities 

Recommendation #17. Involve the private sector in the process of formulating standards 

relating to Federal information activities. 

Recommendation #18. Create or improve mechanisms for ensuring that the actions of 

government agencies, in developing information resources, products, and services, are 

consistent with the policies, goals, and long range plans that are announced. 

Recommendation #19. Announce intentions sufficiently ahead of time to provide an 

opportunity for private sector involvement when a government agency, for reasons it regards 

as compelling, should plan to develop and/or to market an information product or service. 

Recommendation #20. Review and approve, before implementation, any plans for the 

government to develop and/or market an information product or service, the review to be 

carried out by an agency appropriate to the branch of government (such as OMB, GAO, 

CBO). 

Recommendation #21. Include an "information impact and cost analysis" as part of the 

process of review, evaluation, and approval of any plans for the government to develop and/or 

to market an information product or service, the analysis to cover economic and social effects, 

effects on existing products and services, effects on potential private sector products and 

services, and benefits to the public. 

Recommendation #22. Review periodically to evaluate the desirability of continuation of any 

information product or service as a governmental activity. 

Recommendation #23. Do not arbitrarily restrict the Federal government from enhancement of 

information products and services, even if solely to meet the needs of constituencies outside 

the government itself. 

Recommendation #24. Announce the availability of governmentally distributable information 

and maintain one or more registers to help the public determine what governmentally 

distributable information is available. 

Recommendation #25. Deposit governmentally distributable information, in whatever forms it 

may be available, at national and regional centers, including regional depository libraries, 

where it may be examined at no charge. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-40 

Recommendation #26. Do not assert any Federal government copyrights on information the 

Federal government makes domestically available. 

Recommendation #27. Use the nation's libraries and non-governmental information centers as 

means for distribution of governmentally distributable information instead of creating new 

governmental units or expanding existing ones. 

All of these recommendations were focused not so much on the general objectives as on the specifics 

of means. The private sector representatives on the PS/PS Task Force wanted to assure that their 

interests would be heard and listened to. They wanted to assure that procedures in making policies and 

in implementing programs would be as open as possible so as to make it possible for them to 

participate in the process. I think those aspects continue to be necessary, not only to meet the needs of 

private sector entrepreneurs but as a general policy of good government. 

In parallel, the members of the PS/PS Task Force that represented the "public sector" in the debate 

wanted to assure that their interests were also recognized in areas such as equity in access, maintaining 

the role of libraries, assuring that the safety-nets for meeting needs continued to stay in place. In this 

respect, these recommendations tried to balance the two sets of interests. And I think that that too 

continues to be necessary. 

DEFINITIONS 

There were an untold number of definitions. 

In any area of controversy, the terms used in the discussion become not only means for 

expressing the ideas but the very focus of the conflicts themselves. It is thus necessary to 

develop specific definitions for the terms used, so as to assure common understanding and to 

clarify the conflicts. The definitions, as presented here, are not intended to be universally 

accepted, but the principles and recommendations must be read with them in mind. 

I won't here review the array of definitions, but I do want to highlight some of them that I think 

continue to be critical. 

A key issue, here, was the ambiguous position of the third sector organizations (universities, 

libraries, research institutes, professional societies). In some situations, they are public sector 

institutions (public libraries and public universities, for example, are clearly part of 

government, in the sense that they are governmentally funded and operated), but in other 

contexts they function as part of the private sector. The basis for resolution of this ambiguity 

was never clarified, so the third sector organizations—the not-for-profit institutions and 

comparable activities of government—were usually treated as part of their respective sectors 

rather than being identified as a group separate from the other two. The fact remains, though, 

that the very membership of the Task Force was chosen to represent three sectors, not two. 

I think that in public policy debates, certainly in the information field if not more generally, this group 

of institutions, which lie between the "public sector" and the "private sector" needs to be given more 

attention than it usually receives, as an independent set of participants and not buried in one or the 

other of the two. In the international arena, the NGOs (non-governmental organizations) are being 

explicitly recognized as necessary and independent participants, sitting between government and 

business. And that is precisely the group I am talking about here. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-41 

The term "information" was repeatedly used in the Task Force discussions, but it vas 

impossible to arrive at an agreed upon definition. It appeared and was generally understood to 

refer to the content or symbolic substance of a communication, as separate from the physical 

form in which the communication occurred. But despite the appearance of a general 

understanding of the term, it simply eluded specific definition. 

The problem faced by the Task Force is exemplified by the definition of "information" given 

in the 9 June 1980 draft statement from the OMB, concerning "Improved Management and 

Dissemination of Federal Information: Request for Comment". In it, "information" is defined 

as "...publications and other documents, such as reports, studies, and brochures, which are 

available in a paper or microform media (sic)." That definition (in identifying "information" 

with the media that convey it, and with a limited set of such media at that) is irreconcilable 

with the usage in the Task Force. 

Although the Task Force did not define "information", at least characteristics of it as an "economic 

entity" were explicitly recognized. I won't here review what the PS/PS Task Force report said in this 

respect, but I think that what was said continues to be important. It has become especially so as the 

information economy and the information technologies continue to expand. The economic role of 

information needs to be identified, and not simply in the traditional way in which the economists have 

treated it (i.e., simply as part of the decision-making process). 

 

The differences between an information product and an information service were a matter of 

extensive debate and, in fact, seemed to exemplify rather fundamental issues in the discussion. 

This distinction or rather the blurring of this distinction has become increasingly important as a result 

of information technology developments in the past two decades. Indeed, online publication is both a 

product and a service. Now, it may be that a distinction does not need to be made, but the facts are that 

government policies seem to treat them as different. 

There was disagreement over whether the information industry should be limited to private 

sector organizations, thus excluding governmental agencies such as NTIS and the GPO. Those 

arguing that it should include government agencies and their contractors saw the term as 

representing a kind of function; those arguing against doing so, saw the term as representing 

the difference between public and private sectors, "industry" being confined to the private 

sector. 

My own view is that the term "information industry" should be treated as a function and that 

"industry" is not confined to the private sector. In saying that, I must reiterate that I am not suggesting 

that the government (i.e., the "public sector") should get into the business of marketing its products as 

a source of income and in competition with the private sector. But I strongly believe that governmental 

information activities, as functions, should be treated on a par with private sector function, certainly in 

statistical accounting. 

Most of the Task Force deliberations focused on the availability of "government information", 

but the definition of that term fluctuated widely during the discussion. At times, the term was 

taken very broadly, including all kinds of information generated by or collected by the 

government or by its contractors. At other times, the term was taken very narrowly, limited to 

the definition given by the OMB, in which it is restricted to mean "...for which the government 

is the primary user"; that usage contrasts "government information" with "public information", 

the latter being interpreted as '.... information to inform or educate the public". 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-42 

There are many problems underlying the diversity of definitions. I won't here try to review them, as 

they are recounted in the PS/PS Task Force report, but each of the problems interacts with the others, 

and while there is some overlap among them, there are no easy ways of reducing them to a limited 

number of sub-categories of government information. This complicated the task of coming to 

agreement on several principles, since different categories of government information will almost 

certainly require different conditions for availability. I think that the problem in definition of the term 

"government information" continues. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-43 

APPENDIX 18. THE WORLD WIDE LIBRARY 

Written by Christopher Burns, Member, NCLIS Group of Experts for This Assessment 

WHY CAN'T THE WEB BE MORE LIKE A LIBRARY?10

Why can't the Web be more like a library? If you have a library card you can see anything in the 

collection, regardless of the publisher, format or age of the document. But on the Web you often have 

to go from publisher to publisher, agency to agency, site to site to find the document you need. And at 

each step you have to identify yourself, present credentials, and request access. 

In a library, everything available to you is in the card catalog. You can search on author or subject, and 

choose the material you want by looking at the standard information on the card. But on the Web there 

is no comparable set of metadata, no good way to look up an object. You can search across the web 

looking for a description of the object, but the description is not fielded, it doesn't define the date or 

structure of the document, and because it is a broad, general search, it brings back many more 

candidates than the user can handle. You can't narrow your search to a "computer sciences" library, or 

a "personal health" library or a K-12 education library, or a "government documents" library. The state 

of the art is to search on the words appearing on the HTML page, if it is accessible for anonymous 

searching. 

If the information you need is not in the library you can locate it in an affiliated library by searching 

the interlibrary network catalog. But on the Web site the search tools are unique to that site; you can't 

search more than one site at a time at any level of precision. The thousands of individual document 

collections now available on the Web have no standard catalogs that can be searched together, and 

they share no common search protocol. 

If the book or document you want is in the library, it is really there—or will be returned within a 

predictable time. But on the Web it is common to find that the information has moved to an unknown 

address, or that it has been superseded by a new and different document, or that it has since been 

withdrawn, lost, or "revised". The Web is ephemeral; there is little sense of preservation or 

accountability especially in critical areas like scientific, technical or government documents. As often 

as we may have criticized librarians for emphasizing preservation and circulation management, we can 

see now that life without those disciplines is chaotic and unreliable. 

If you can't find it in a library, ask the librarian. But on the Web there are no authority files or crossindexes. There are no tools like a list of publications recently added to a community of sites, no 

standard dictionary of author's names and pseudonyms, no catalog of sites. We get "links lists." No 

one evaluates the authenticity or usefulness of a site—each one asserts its authority through mere 

existence. Time and again we have seen that the most valuable information retrieval device is a helpful 

colleague whose knowledge and judgment one trusts—and there are none of those on the Web. 

In spite of the rich profusion of knowledge now available to anyone on the simplest terms, the Web is 

more like a flea market than a department store. You walk from stall to stall, adjusting to this 

 

10 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/asess.appen18.pdf. This appendix was last revised on September 5, 2000. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-44 

organizational scheme and that eccentric standard. But the pleasure it offers in serendipity is lost for 

some in its lack of organization and precision. The searcher sinks deeper and deeper into that most 

modern paranoia: knowledge that the exact information needed is out there somewhere, coupled with 

the certainty that it will never be found. 

We can change this. If the Web or some portion of it is to become the organized network of 

knowledge that our libraries now represent, then we will have to find a way to preserve the flourishing 

independence and accessibility of Web sites as we know them, but align them through standards, 

protocols and procedures so document and publication catalogs can be searched more precisely 

together. How can we bring the thousands of emerging document sites to a higher state of 

organization? 

MOVING TOWARD DECENTRALIZED COLLECTIONS 

Historically we have approached the task of managing diverse document collections by putting all the 

materials into a single database, running under a single search protocol and a single access 

management regime. This is still the obvious solution when the documents are all of the same type and 

format and when all the users belong to the same organization. When the documents types are the 

same and the users are willing to accept strong central systems management, it is even possible to have 

distributed databases operating in separate but identical environments. This works for hospitals owned 

by a single group, for example, who keep their patient records in a group-specified format on separate 

but interconnected systems. Branch libraries in a large city, a chain of retail stores or regional offices 

of a major government agency may also benefit from centralized management of decentralized 

resources. 

But when the interests and activities of the user group begin to diversify, and the collection of 

documents comes to include many different formats the right architecture is less clear. Different file 

types may be best stored in different systems. User groups may have different requirements for access 

and security. Separate systems are able to evolve more quickly than a large document database on 

which many groups depend. More important but harder to rationalize, decentralized collections keep 

the information under control of the organization that cares most about it; the collection is nourished. 

Over and over we find that when diverse collections are gathered together in a central corporate or 

government system, maintenance declines and controls grow to favor efficient management of the 

system instead of service for the user. 

Recent efforts to manage diverse document collections have taken a different approach: leave the 

collections on local systems under local control, but create a single shared catalog located on the Web. 

Users can search the catalog for documents and other information, just as one searches a library 

catalog. When the document is found, the user clicks on the link icon and is connected over the 

Internet to the local system where the information is available. Access and security can be managed 

specifically by each collection, and each system can be configured independently for the needs of the 

user and the type of files it contains. This architecture allows rapid growth in the number and diversity 

of collections available to the user. The tools are simple and local control over content is preserved. To 

make a document available beyond the local system, the collection manager puts a "card" in the 

central catalog, but the object itself remains at home. 

But that is the problem. For a shared catalog system to be useful, the independent collection managers 

must keep it up to date. While some automation is possible to help send updates to the central catalog, 

the burden inevitably falls on the local collection management staff, and they usually have more 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-45 

immediate duties. We have tried having the corporation send subsidies to the operating unit to pay for 

this cataloging, but that is a pale monetary incentive. Various organizations have tried creating 

document librarians, centrally funded, who scour the local collections and do the cataloging. But this, 

too, gets displaced in the daily business of creating and using the information. If the cataloging is not 

somehow made integral to the production workflow, it doesn't get done. 

RECIPROCAL CATALOG ACCESS 

The third alternative, proposed here, is to decentralize the collections, decentralize the catalogs and 

create a centralized search mechanism by which the users of each collection can search other 

participating collections at the same time. This is not a general utility available to all users of the 

World Wide Web. It is a "network" or affiliated group of online collections and libraries that have 

agreed to provide each other's users with reciprocal catalog access. The network is implemented by (a) 

adopting certain information standards and protocols specific to their group, and (b) creating a shared 

search mechanism which all their users can access. A network might be shared by all the colleges in a 

statewide university system, or all government agencies, or all the public libraries and museums in a 

region. It may be a research consortium in biological sciences, or independent suppliers of parts to the 

aviation industry. By creating a standard "public" catalog format, a standard search request, and a 

protocol for reciprocal access, the group can maintain independent document collections, each 

cataloged by its own staff, but each accessible to the users of all other participating collections. It will 

behave as a federation of collections, accessible as a virtual database, functioning like a network of 

libraries. 

Three major systems elements are necessary for such a network to function: (a) each participating 

library would have to create and maintain a public catalog that follows a standard format. (b) Together 

the participating libraries would have to install and support a central system for searching all the 

catalogs in the network. (c) The members of the network must agree on a protocol for extending user 

privileges, allowing access, and reporting usage. 

The Public Catalog: Central to the concept of a network library is that each participating library or 

collection maintains an online catalog of the documents it has chosen to make available. Where a 

simple HTML page might list all the documents available, the catalog provides fielded metadata so the 

user can search more deeply and more specifically on date, author, document number, format or 

language. A participant could choose to make some but not all objects accessible this way, and could 

keep an internal catalog in an entirely different format for users within the local organization. 

The catalog must be in a structure and location accessible over the Internet and should contain basic 

metadata in a standard format for each object or document. While there are several existing metadata 

standards that might be employed (for example the ONIX system develop by book publishers or GILS 

developed primarily for government use) the Dublin Core standard seems a good starting point for the 

metadata, and offers an insight into the catalog's likely complexity. Developed by the library 

community, the standard specifies the definition and general format of sixteen descriptive elements 

designed to aid in finding the document. Those elements include: 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-46 

Title: Title of the document or resource 

Subject: Series of key terms that describe the document. These may be from a general 

thesaurus, or from a specialized thesaurus maintained by the affiliated libraries. For example, a 

community of document collections related to aerospace might agree to share a specialized thesaurus 

of terms useful to that community. 

Description: A description, abstract, table of contents or excerpt of the document. 

Coverage: An optional additional description, usually to deal with geography. 

Creator: The person or organization responsible for creating the document. 

Contributor: Additional persons or organization who contributed to the content. 

Publisher: The organization responsible for primary distribution. 

Source: The original source of the material, if not the author or publisher. 

Relation: Relationship of this document to a previous document or set of documents. 

 Type: The Dublin Core proposal recommends using very general types, such as dataset, sound, 

image and text. 

Network Search System Network Search System 

• Directory of participating libraries 

• Location and map of catalogs 

• Access management rules 

• Authority files and cross indexes 

• Repository of shared files 

• Usage accounting

USER 

Participating Online Library Participating Online Library 

• User Identification 

• Link to Network Search System 

Catalog Catalog Catalog Catalog 

• Metadata about documents 

• Access management parameters 

• Link to documents 

CollectionCollection Collection Collection 

Objects and documents under

local control 

1. User visits affiliated library site, presents 

credentials, chooses to search beyond the 

local catalog. 

5. Search system receives, organizes and 

displays responses. User may revise and reissue search

2. User is linked to the network search 

system, selects libraries to search. 

3. User frames search request using 

metadata fields, cross indexes, authority

files

4. Search system sends request to all 

selected catalogs, 

6. User selects document and clicks on link 

to request access. 

7. Local library makes document available 

or presents user with local access protocol. 

How the World Wide Library Works How the World Wide Library Works 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-47 

Format: File format, medium, dimensions. 

Rights: A rights management statement, for example copyright date and owner. 

Date: Date of publication. 

Language: Language in which the document is written. 

Identifier: May be a unique number within a known set such as a government publication 

number, or it may be a more general identifier such as the Digital Object Identifier used in the 

publishing community. 

 

The catalog would need two additional elements: 

Location: A link to the document itself, or a description of its location. 

Access: An indication of what limitation there may be on access. 

These elements would need to be refined by the participants in a particular network, including 

development of syntax and conventions for each one (last name first?, format of the date?) so that they 

could be efficiently searched. Specific differences between one catalog and another in the same 

network can be mediated by the search engine. The online catalog is like the union catalog compiled 

by several libraries, or like the online catalog they now maintain together. 

The Network Search System: Users of the network would have to send their search requests to all 

participating sites in a common format. This can be best done by an intermediate site which 

establishes the identity of the user, helps the user construct the search in the most efficient form, sends 

the search request out to participating catalogs and provides the user with an aggregated response. The 

search system provides a directory of network sites, information about how those catalogs are 

maintained and authority files to help the user clarify or expand certain kinds of searches. It permits 

the user to search all the catalogs in the network with a single command and enforces any access 

restrictions in place at individual libraries. It redirects any searches or links to new URL's in case they 

have been moved and reports the results of the search to the user. The user may then access the 

document directly from the participating collection, or request access from the collection manager. It 

begins to behave as a librarian's assistant, providing news, advice and help in searching across the 

network. 

In an expanded role, the network search system might support a shared repository of documents or 

objects that all the libraries use. It may also store documents that are no longer in the individual 

library's collection but which the entire network agrees should remain available. 

The Access Management Protocol: The same network search system would also determine that the 

user is member of the authorized user group. Individual libraries and collection managers who 

participate in the network may issue their members user identities, or they may connect the user to the 

central search system through their own site. But basic to the notion of an online library network is 

that the participants are not individuals but libraries or online document collections who manage the 

network together, and who affirm the identity of the individual users to whom these access privileges 

have been extended. The access management system would also record the usage of documents by 

user or participating library. It is the equivalent of libraries in a region that honor each other's library 

cards. 

Libraries who wish to join an existing network may do so by creating a public catalog on their site and 

agreeing to the reciprocal access management protocol. As networks form around specific types of 

documents, specific topics, regions or types of organizations, a library may belong to more than one 

network without creating more than one public catalog. To form such a network, a group of libraries 

would have to agree to acquire and support the shared search system. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-48 

Users who wish to gain access to the network may request affiliation with a participating library, and 

while this seems to present an obstacle to a user accustomed to ranging freely across the Internet, it 

allows a community of libraries to share a level of security, user identification and usage accounting 

that might otherwise be costly for an individual library. 

The World Wide Web was conceived as an open system allowing any user access to any information 

on any site. But the lack of a structured catalog and the absence of an adequate mechanism for 

searching multiple sites means that while the Web is wonderful for reaching "pages" of information, it 

isn't equipped to handle the higher form of information objects, "documents". The World Wide 

Library allows sites of similar interest to create affiliations with common metadata and reciprocal 

catalog searching so that the user of one site can find documents on other sites as well with a single 

search. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-49 

APPENDIX 19. FIRSTGOV.GOV: A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT 

Note: This is a preliminary evaluation of the FirstGov project, including a comparison 

of the FirstGov portal with the comparable effort in the United Kingdom, called UK 

online. The author agreed to undertake this analysis at the request of the Commission 

in connection with the its Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information 

Dissemination. The views expressed herein are entirely the author's and do not 

necessarily reflect the official views of the Commission. 

Written by William H. Price, Member, NCLIS Group of Experts for This Assessment 

A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF FIRSTGOV11

On June 24, 2000, the lead article on CNN.com announced: "In historic "Website chat," Clinton 

unveils era of U.S. "e-government."12 The President said that a new Internet site, FirstGov.gov, would 

be launched in about 90 days (meaning late September 2000, but the search engine developer, Inktomi, 

indicates "early November" is a more realistic date). In the words of the President: 

It will be linked to all federal information Web sites -- the world's largest collection. 

... When its complete FirstGov will serve as a single point of entry to one of the 

largest, perhaps the most useful collection of Web pages in the entire world.13

The President said FirstGov will offer individuals, small businesses, and others a single source for 

information from the federal government: 

Whether you want crucial information in starting a small business, or you want to 

track your Social Security benefits, you can do it all in one place, 24 hours a day, 

seven days a week," in starting a small business, or you want to track your Social 

Security benefits, you can do it all in one place, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.14

The FirstGov site will be managed by the General Services Administration (GSA). FirstGov replaces 

WebGov, a project initiated several years ago by this same agency. The GSA Administrator, David 

Barram, indicated that one error in judgment relating to the way WebGov was approached was the 

failure to involve the public and private sectors in a partnership configuration. Instead, the government 

tried to do the whole job itself. A contest to cull new ideas in electronic government service was also 

announced. The nonprofit Council for Excellence in Government agreed to award $50,000 for the best 

ideas. 

In articles appearing since the June 24th announcement, the figure of 100 million government Web 

pages has been mentioned, to be accessible through a "single portal," the new state-of-the-art term of 

 

11 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen19.pdf. The first segment of this appendix was last revised on 

September 15, 2000. 

12 In historic 'Webside chat,' Clinton unveils era of U.S. 'e-government' June 24, 2000, 

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/06/24/clinton.webcast/index.html. 13 Ibid. 

14 Ibid. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-50 

preference for a single web site permitting access to a large number of other web sites. The idea of 

providing a "single, one stop service" for government information is not a new one. To the contrary, 

the idea is almost as old as the Nation itself. However, all have faced enormous, some insurmountable 

difficulties in the past for a wide variety of reasons. 

FirstGov is a portal that affords citizens, businesses, state and local government officials, and other 

government information users the opportunity to search using a single federal government home page. 

Interestingly, an agency or other government entity must "buy into" FirstGov by first agreeing to 

become a "certified partner." There are certain obligations and conditions that must first be met before 

the applying entity can be considered certified. 

The search engine and database index are being developed by a nonprofit group headed by Eric 

Brewer, Chief Scientist at Inktomi Corporation in Foster City, California. In press materials the 

company announced that its search engine could search 500 million Web pages in 0.25 seconds. GSA 

Administrator Barram indicated that Brewer suggested the idea to the President while attending the 

World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January 2000. It remains to be seen if the 

technology will be as sophisticated as the marketing of this capability. 

My purpose here is merely to highlight on some of the more significant challenges. I believe the idea 

of a "pilot test" is, indeed, a very useful initiative, and the President is to be applauded for forging 

ahead with this initiative. The very experience of attempting to bring up the Web site will, in my view, 

underscore the need for fundamental reforms in the way the federal government's information is 

"captured," identified, organized and structured, maintained and stored, managed throughout its entire 

information life cycle, and ultimately archived or disposed of. It will also have the sobering impact of 

exposing millions of Americans to the incredible array of government information that is "theirs for 

the asking." But it will also, inevitably, carry some disappointments as citizens begin to realize that 

searching for information is a very time-consuming, complex, and altogether formidable chore, much 

less having finally located it, then downloading it or otherwise retrieving it for use. 

Here are some of the challenges. 

1. The United States government generates an enormous amount of information, both nationally 

from the central federal government in Washington, D.C., and regionally at the state, local, and 

tribal government levels, as well as abroad at U.S. embassies, military bases, and specialized 

agency offices that require foreign representation. What will the scope of FirstGov be? Moreover, 

there is lots of "government information" that is not .gov for a variety of reasons. One is that the 

government has entered into some kind of contractual or informal arrangement with a contractor, 

an individual, a university, or some other kind of institution or group, to perform work for it. Is all 

of the information generated by those government agents and surrogates also going to be 

included? 

2. Retrievability of information, whether government information or any other kind of information, 

is immeasurably simplified and speeded up the way the information to be searched is organized 

and structured in the first place. Unfortunately, the government does not organize its data, 

documents, and literature around commonly used subject headings, like most of the library, 

archival, museum, and journalism worlds do. Instead, the information is organized around agency 

names, agency missions, agency functions, and similar "bureaucratic buzz words." Correlating 

those bureaucratic classifications with commonly used subject terms is a chore that has thus far 

defied repeated efforts by many different bibliographic experts and expert groups over the years. 

The need for now coming to grips squarely with this correlation is acute in the electronic 

information age. Intuition is not much help here. Who, other than an experienced bureaucrat, 

knows that marriages, births, and deaths is information produced and made available by the 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-51 

Census Bureau? Who, other than an experienced government documents librarian, would know 

that permits for operating a boat in an inland navigable waterway is issued by the Coast Guard? 

The examples are virtually endless. 

3. Agencies are already being criticized for bringing information products up one day on one of their 

web sites and taking it down the next. How will citizens react to this approach to web site 

integrity? Even worse, an entire web site is brought up one day and disappears the next. Some 

agencies have admitted they neither know, nor can control the number of web sites their own 

agencies have established. GSA officials say "the pressure of the public in demanding tighter 

quality controls over web site and web page integrity will force agencies to correct this situation." 

One study indicates that of the approximately 20,000 federal web sites, many have been entirely 

abandoned or their contents is so badly outdated as to be virtually useless. 

4. Index terms, like governmental functions themselves, are not static, they are dynamic. The argot 

of the day changes from hour to hour, from day to day. A dynamic, empirically developed online 

thesaurus of search terms is a critical requirement to assist users. Many an online database has 

been wrecked on the shoals of static indexing systems and thesauri that simply could not rise to 

the challenge. 

5. Agency policies, guidelines, standards, and procedures governing the posting of public 

information products to their web sites are few and far between. Of course to a large extent 

agencies cannot be faulted too harshly on that score because they are just starting down the path of 

the Internet. What is less forgivable, however, is the lack of leadership in OMB in this area. There 

are some commendable policies in place, but they are not being evaluated and extended on a 

government-wide basis. 

6. According to NCLIS, there is no single, central, authoritative official within agencies that has 

clear responsibility and authority for online publishing. It would appear the public affairs offices 

in some cases have this responsibility, but in others it is the CIO, and in others it is still the print 

publishing official who now has both electronic and pre-electronic publishing responsibility. 

There is nothing wrong with different agencies using different models of responsibility and 

authority that are tailored to their unique needs, but what is not permissible is the failure of the 

agency head to pinpoint responsibility somewhere, in some office, in someone. 

7. It is far from clear how security, privacy, and confidentiality concerns will be addressed. Who 

controls these determinations, and who will be the final approving authority? One of the most 

difficult problems faced by librarians and other information professionals is the challenge of 

determining the authenticity of the data they are viewing on a web page: "Is this the official copy 

I'm looking at, or is this an unofficial copy?" This is an extremely difficulty challenge and one that 

NCLIS ran into when it did a survey several years ago of some 23 different federal agencies and 

over 300 specific government information products. Many agencies felt, for example, that just list 

their agency name on the web page, or the name of its agency head, was adequate to reassure the 

viewer that the information was official!

8. Information literacy is another problem. While there is a current excitement over the thousands of 

new "dot.coms," dot.govs," "dot.edus" and dot this and dot that which are coming up hourly, 

already the frustrations of knowing how to navigate even a single web site, much less across sites, 

are turning many users off. There is certainly a need for an online navigation course that users 

who do not possess the requisite computer and information literacy skills can take to bring them 

up to speed with those skills.

9. The "crawlers" as they are called, are blind and is not the best technology to get into a database. 

Moreover, crawlers can be very intrusive, and too many crawlers acting concurrently have been 

known to cause very serious problems in searching sites. Moreover, crawls should be 

comprehensive instead of sampling in their approach.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-52 

10. Government Information Locator System (GILS) compliancy is another challenge, and it is 

doubtful that FirstGov, at least initially, will be GILS-compliant. Experience so far in 

implementing GILS at the agency level has been uneven at best. However, in the long run, the 

very existence of a single, one stop portal for accessing government information augurs well for 

the value of a GILS (whether the current one or a future iteration) since the value of an 

authoritative, comprehensive metadata tool to assist in identifying, locating, and describing 

government information should be incontrovertibly underscored. 

In short, the challenges are legion, but the need for such a pilot test far outweighs the fear of posing 

more new questions than answers can be provided. This has always been the classic dilemma of 

diffusing new technologies, and information technologies are no exception. The government must 

participate actively in the pilot test, and the lessons learned must be carefully documented so that the 

next generation of federal search engines can profit by the inevitable shortcomings. NCLIS should 

participate in the pilot test since it is an inseparable project from their current study of public 

information dissemination reforms. Certainly the players involved must provide advice and guidance 

in this Herculean undertaking. 

A COMPARISON OF THE UNITED STATES AND UNITED KINGDOM INTERNET 

GATEWAYS15

The United States Government and the Government of the United Kingdom are among several 

national governments to offer an Internet gateway into their official information sources as well as the 

services available. The United States site is identified as "First Gov" and is available at 

http://www.firstgov.gov/ and is readily recognized by its colorful banner of the United States flag. The 

United Kingdom site is identified as "UK online Citizen Portal" and is available at 

http://www.ukonline.gov.uk/. These two sites differ principally in the scope of information available. 

Both are presented in a manner to facilitate ease of use. They offer a new outreach to their citizens in 

navigating through government information and services that are available. 

These two important services were reviewed to determine ease of use as well as the scope and depth of 

information available. The topics chosen for review focused on three aspects of both governments: 

acquisition of housing, Federal benefits and National Security intelligence activities. 

Summary of Findings 

 

Depending on the information or service sought, navigating FirstGov or UK online to produce desired 

results can be time consuming and a complicated task. A user will be confronted with the need to use 

synonyms to "accurately" locate desired information. An example in this review is "home" and 

"house". The facilities for searching and identifying information are available, but the information is 

vast and often expressed in unfamiliar terms. Adequate time, patience and determination are required 

for those in need of the information or service. 

The differences in scope and depth of information available from these two systems are indicative of 

the size of the two governments and size of the Nations they support. The ability to provide a hub or 

focal point for information from all the components in government is remarkable. Equally remarkable 

is the effort made by government agencies to capture and digitize information in their sphere of 

responsibility. These information facilities allow a citizen to cut across agency and department lines to 

 

15 This segment of the appendix was submitted to NCLIS on January 8, 2001. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-53 

locate desired information. An example is "pesticides". Several agencies have responsibility for 

dealing with this issue, but from their perspectives and spheres of responsibility. To some degree, a 

citizen may not be required to know the structure of their government, nor the names of the 

departments as a prerequisite for to finding needed information 

The Introductory and Welcome Page

FirstGov 

The United States site is introduced by a colorful banner of the United States flag and FirstGov - Your 

First Click to the U.S. Government. The central menu on this page lists key information topics such as 

"Agriculture and Food, Farms, Food Nutrition"; "Consumer Services and Safety"; "Environment and 

Energy, Weather", "Federal Benefits and Grants, Social Security, Medicare"; "Money and Taxes"; 

"The U.S. in the World, Defense. Trade, Immigration" are among the 16 topics presented for selection 

as a gateway to more information. 

Additionally, a citizen can access information from any of the three branches of government as well as 

state and local governments. Featured Subjects such as Consumer Handbook, Federal Business 

Opportunities, and Government for Kids are among the subjects that can be accessed by a click. 

At the top of this introductory page is the ability to search across the government for information on a 

subject such as pesticides, water pollution, etc. This is an important feature that can access information 

which is held by several government agencies with varying responsibilities for a given subject. The 

citizen may not be familiar with what agencies this information resides in, but this provides the access 

to wherever the information may reside. 

UK Online 

This Welcome page also uses a colorful rainbow banner, but it presents the user with fewer choices for 

access. There are four major topics represented by four graphic icons: Quick Find, Life Episodes, 

Citizen Space, and Getting the UK online. Unfortunately, the sub-titles that further define these 

choices are difficult to read because of the font and small font size. Under each icon is a Go button to 

launch access. Across the top are buttons to access About this site, Contact us, UK online for business, 

Help, and a Site map. 

Citizen Portal Members may Register as a new user, Sign in, or Recover a forgotten password. You 

may also Personalize Your Citizen Portal as to where in the UK you live – England, Scotland, Wales 

or Northern Ireland; your language - English or Cymraeg?, and preferences. 

This opening page is sparse with choices, but it may offer a citizen a less complicated entry to needs. 

Important is the ability to search for a subject or topic. 

Review 1 - Acquiring a Home 

First Gov 

Bypassing a selection of Executive Branch Agencies and going directly to search for "House", 

produced 344,377 irrelevant matches. Even with "purchase" added as a qualifier, the results were 

similar. Among the matches to "House Purchase" were how to get White House tickets, Colombian 

Military Aid Package, and "Bipartisan Death Tax Repeal". 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-54 

Lacking pertinent results from this direct search, the Executive Branch was selected. This produced an 

index of all government departments. From this list, Housing and Urban Development was selected. 

This produced a list of agency functions, and "Housing" was selected. This produced a page titled 

"Own a Home" which contained selections for "first Time Home buyers, and a "Home buyer's Kit". 

There was also topic titled "Homes for sale by HUD listed by State". 

Taking the approach by Executive Branch and Department of Housing and Urban Development had 

produced results that a direct search of the words "home" and "purchase" had failed to yield. However, 

the average citizen may not know enough of the government structure to make such a probe. 

UK online Citizen Portal 

From the Welcome page, the icon "Quick find" was selected to produce another page that offered 

search facilities. The term "own home" produced 254,884 results. The top 500 were arrayed by 

relevance. However, most of these matches were not pertinent. "Buying on the Internet" was selected, 

but this produced a page of buying tips, regulations, and rights as a consumer. 

The information produced was interesting, but it was not what was sought—specific houses for sale. 

Review 2 - Qualifying and Applying for Federal Benefits 

First Gov 

A search on the Welcome Page for Benefits produced 511,173 matches. Within the top ten, which 

scored 98 percent relevance, were three that addressed Social Security Benefits, all three were 

identical, and one gave guidance on Health Benefits. A substantial percentage applied to benefits 

available only to Federal government employees. 

Alternatively, on the Welcome page the Executive Branch was selected, and on the next page a listing 

of departments in the Executive Branch was presented headed by an emphasized category titled 

"Interesting Topics" and "Federal Benefits and Grants". Selecting this category produces a list 

featuring three topics: Social Security, Medicare, and Grants. These are followed by more specific 

links such as Disabilities Benefits, Disaster Assistance, Earned Income Tax Credit, etc. Selecting any 

one of the specific benefits will produce the desired information. 

UK Online 

On the Welcome page, a search for Benefits was made with Find it. It produced 10,903 results and 

displayed the top 500 sorted by relevance, the highest of which was 48 percent. A large number 

addressed statutory requirements for specific benefits, namely social security, retirement and pension. 

Ranking 54th in matches with a 42 percent relevance was an item that offered more information to 

assist a citizen to decide about benefits that may be disabled if one is sick or disabled. This is followed 

by "Young Peoples Guide to Social Security" and "Social Security Terms and Conditions of 

Employment" 

Items returned by the search have the word "benefits" highlighted where it occurs in the title of 

explanation. To the right of each is a Button with an Arrow labeled GO to further access information 

for items. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-55 

Review 3 - National Security and Defense 

The third and final search used for review was a National security subject common to both Nations, 

ECHELON. The ECHELON Project is based on a worldwide satellite system for monitoring 

electronic communications encompassing cell and wireless telephones and other electronic exchanges. 

This system was developed by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) with the participation of 

several countries. A major part of this system is a large antenna array and downlink station at Menwith 

Hills, England. The purpose of this review was to determine how forthcoming the information systems 

of both governments are. 

As background, a search for ECHELON on Internet, using Altavista or Excite, yields a number of 

news articles dealing with this very sophisticated, highly innovative and near real-time system. Yahoo 

has a collection to references of all articles published on ECHELON. Satellites are used to intercept 

voice communications and transfer them to a computer system that compares these sounds to a table of 

keywords in multiple languages. If a match with certain words in the sound bank occurs, the 

conversation is routed to a linguist for listening and analysis. All of this is done in near real time from 

intercept to review. One magazine published that the conversation between an official in a government 

and a party in another country was intercepted, and that money was authorized for blowing up the 

enlisted men's building in Saudi Arabia. The Army was warned but did not act on the information. 

This system has been widely discussed and debated in the Parliament of the European Community. 

Concerns focus on the invasion of privacy, and the potential use of this information for industrial 

espionage to give American corporations an economic advantage. 

First Gov 

A search on the Welcome page produced 2,123 matches, practically all of which were irrelevant. 

However, the one relevant hit dealt with threats by a Congressman to expose the project, despite the 

fact that it is already known. No additional searches were performed to locate any information on this 

subject. 

UK online 

A similar search was made using Find it on the Welcome page. It only produced two matches of 28 

and 15 percent relevance. Neither dealt with ECHELON. Since a major satellite downlink station is 

located at Menwith Hills, a search was made of this name. Twenty four results were found ranging 

downward from 48 percent relevance. Six of these may address Menwith Hills since two are from the 

Intelligence and Security Committee, three with House of Commons query to the Secretary of State 

for Defense, and one with the National Asset Register. 

The lack of information from these official organizations only underscores the practice of governments 

not to confirm materials from unofficial sources. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-56 

APPENDIX 20. LINKING THE INFORMATION LIFE CYCLE CONCEPT WITH 

DIGITAL LIBRARIES 

NCLIS POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ON LINKING 

THE INFORMATION LIFE CYCLE CONCEPT WITH DIGITAL LIBRARIES 

Written by Satadip Dutta, Virginia Institute of Technology 

Reviewed by Edward A. Fox and Shalin Urs16

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY17

The aim of this paper is to provide recommendations that would be used in the study of reforms to the 

Federal Government's public information dissemination laws, policies, programs, and practices. The 

paper describes the information lifecycle that outlines the process of creation, retrieval, and utilization 

of information. Salient features of government information are then discussed. The paper then 

explores the issues relevant to government information that include distribution of government 

information artifacts, issues in standardization of publishing formats, remodeling the information 

publishing model, and digital preservation of these artifacts. The scope of the paper is limited to 

exploring issues and making recommendations related to government information artifacts that would 

help the scholarly community. 

THE INFORMATION LIFECYCLE MODEL 

Information stored in libraries passes through a definite lifecycle that involves major phases like: 

• Information Creation: This phase primarily targets the creation of any kind of information. It 

involves authors and other creators actually preparing and modifying the information. The 

organizing and indexing of this information to facilitate retrieval in later phases is also a part of 

this phase. 

• Information Search: This phase deals with retrieving the information stored in (digital) libraries 

and other repositories. Activities like distribution of information also may be involved in ensuring 

widespread retrieval of relevant information. 

• Information Utilization: This phase deals with issues in accessing the distributed warehouses of 

information. Information selected may be utilized for creation of new information. Issues related 

to preservation and mining of information also are relevant to this phase. 

Figure 1 illustrates the lifecycle of information. This portrayal was prepared in 1996 at an NSF-funded 

workshop on Social Aspects of Digital Libraries, hosted by the Department of Information Science, 

University of California, Los Angeles. The report proposed a definition of digital libraries that 

encompassed two complementary ideas: 

 

16 Created by Satadip Dutta for Virginia Tech CS6604 term project ("Digital Libraries"); reviewed and edited by E. A. Fox 

(Professor) and Dr. Shalini Urs (visiting Fulbright scholar). 

17 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen20.pdf. Interim revision October 16, 2000; final revision 

November 28, 2000. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-57 

1. that they extend and enhance existing information storage and retrieval systems, incorporating 

digital data and metadata in any form; 

2. that digital library design, policy, and practice should reflect social context. 

Creating, seeking, and using information are socially situated human activities. Some activities may 

evolve in the predicted directions as defined by the information lifecycle. However, there also are 

many less regular information activities that: switch back and forth between phases, skip phases, or 

end before the cycle is complete. 

Figure 1: Information Lifecycle18

 

18 Adopted from Christine Borgman, editor. NSF Workshop Report on Social Aspects of Digital Libraries, 1996, http://wwwlis.gseis.ucla.edu/DL/. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-58 

Details relative to the information lifecycle with respect to particular types and collection of 

publications may vary according to the particular social or institutional contexts. Government 

information has distinct properties that are not always present in other information artifacts. For 

example a government information artifact is always produced in a context related to the political, 

technical, administrative, legal, and temporal setting. A context can be defined as a certain timedelimited environmental and social state. For example a foreign trade policy forged during a time of 

war should be understood in the context of war. The information artifact may not, however, contain 

information about that context. If contextual information (e.g., being at war) is not captured, the 

significance and rationale behind document creation may be lost when the document is viewed at other 

times (e.g., in times of peace). Therefore production and publishing of government information 

artifacts involves not only the development of the material but also recording the context of production 

(e.g., in metadata or a hyperlinked document). 

INFORMATION CREATION 

This section contrasts the current information publication model with a digital library based scheme. 

Creation of metadata to facilitate information retrieval, and some issues related to document standards, 

are then discussed.

 

Information Publishing Model

The current information publishing process goes through a series of phases. Beginning with author, it 

moves on to the editors, then to publishers, and thence to catalogers and librarians, who add value and 

enable published information to be consumed by the general public. Figure 2 illustrates this sequential 

model and describes the steps required therein for authors and readers to communicate over space and 

time. 

Figure 2: Sequential Information Publishing Model 

A different model (see Figure 3) may result when all communication occurs in the same cyberspace 

(e.g., Internet), or, equivalently, in the same (federated/distributed) digital library. Participants in the 

process, regardless of their role, may simply be thought of as "users", who play different roles at 

different times. This "users direct" approach allows submissions to become available at point/time of 

creation, perhaps with improved/approved versions resulting later. The current revolution in electronic 

publishing also allows us to aggregate users/roles differently. Using Internet terminology we have: 

Author 

Editor Reviewer 

Publisher 

A & I 

Consolidator 

Library

Reader 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-59 

authors/creators, data providers, and service providers. In this model the data provider is responsible 

for managing collections/archives that follow content creation. 

Figure 3: Internet Enabled Publishing Model 

In the Open Archives model,19 data providers need only support a simple harvesting protocol and 

provide extracts of metadata in a common minimal-level format in response to requests from service 

providers. The Open Archives Initiative is currently formulating an interoperability framework that 

would support both e-prints and a wide variety of other types of (scholarly) data archives. Service 

providers use extracted metadata to build higher level, user-oriented services, such as catalogs and 

portals to materials distributed across multiple content-bearing sites. Figure 4 illustrates service 

provision and data provision as the two main aspects of the digital library. Thus from a sequential 

model, we may shift to an Internet enabled publishing model where the participants, their roles, and 

the distribution of responsibilities may differ. 

Figure 4: Service Provision Using Metadata 

Figure 4 illustrates that users create, interact, and use data through a layer of services. These services 

may enable the user to create/modify information artifacts as described in Figure 3. 

 

19 The Open Archives Initiative, OAI, was launched Oct. 1999 and aims to support interoperability of archives. The current 

emphasis relates to a harvesting protocol and architecture of very simple data collections ("archives") that have digital 

objects, metadata objects, and support the protocol. It focuses on a middle, or harvesting, layer, assuming a lower document 

model layer, and services in layers above. Open Archives Initiative, web site, http://www.openarchives.org/. 

USER 

SERVICE 

PROVISION

DATA 

PROVISION

DIGITAL LIBRARY 

DIGITAL 

LIBRARY USER

Author 

Librarian 

Reader 

Editor 

Reviewer Learner 

Teacher

ROLES 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-60 

Metadata Repositories

The move from a sequential information model to an Internet enabled publishing model may shift 

more of the responsibility for metadata and index creation to the creators of information artifacts and 

their agents. Metadata may be stored in repositories that can be used when searching for information 

present in libraries. The creation of metadata is extremely important for digital objects like datasets, 

music, speeches, video, maps, and pictures (though improving content-based multimedia information 

retrieval may play an important new role). The scholarly community also may exploit metadata 

repositories to mine information, e.g., for discovering trends. Government or commercial (public and 

private) firms may develop and apply different retrieval routines. These may extend search capabilities 

beyond keyword-based models to support retrieval by describing the semantics or context of the 

information. Superior indexing techniques will also play an important role. Research focusing on 

techniques to automatically index multimedia information, plus semantics and context, with minimum 

manual intervention, should be encouraged. 

Document Formats

Changes in information publishing may necessitate interoperable formats and standardization. In the 

new model the author/creator may be responsible for submission of information artifacts in standard 

forms to the digital library. Today there are standards like HTML and PDF. Other formats will evolve 

and prove better. For example the emerging XML standard can be used to represent, interchange, and 

manipulate a wide variety of data and information artifacts. Digital libraries also may use such 

schemes when migrating existing documents, which now exist in a variety of formats. This problem 

primarily exists due to the lack of consensus about document publication formats. 

Apart from the migration and conversion problem, the material produced for government by the 

research community also needs to be distributed effectively so that everyone can easily find desired 

information. Many of the document formats require special readers that people may or may not have 

access to easily. These tools may be available free of cost but the existing infrastructure may not be 

sufficient to grant access to everyone. Users should be able to view the files without any special 

requirements. Therefore the software (like readers) must be made publicly available and steps should 

be taken to ensure that every computer has necessary software installed. This can help eliminate the 

problem of users with disparate backgrounds having different access capabilities. 

INFORMATION SEARCH 

This section discusses the creation of digital libraries on the scale of national libraries. The possibility 

of using services of non-government agencies to build effective retrieval mechanisms and the issues of 

registering information are then explored. 

Digital Libraries

People have traditionally viewed libraries as repositories of information that are easily identifiable and 

accessible. The creation of very large (e.g., coordinated national) digital libraries necessitates the need 

to provide the same or greater volume of information, along with ease of access. To make the digital 

libraries well known or truly identifiable it is necessary first to at least promote them as alternatives to 

and extensions of the various conventional libraries. This may involve physical creation of multiple 

locations of digital libraries that are interconnected. Distributed or federated digital libraries are now 

popular for this and other social/economic/political reasons. Creation of multiple sites with 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-61 

mirroring/replication balances the load and results in better performance. Focused promotion activities 

can help publicize such digital libraries. 

However, digital libraries will attract tremendous use, probably several orders of magnitude more than 

conventional libraries, simply because they can be superior to current systems and services. They can 

seamlessly handle all media types. They should seamlessly handle integration of wide varieties of data 

and information, with powerful and tailorable services. Not only should there be highly effective 

searching, but also browsing, linking, navigation, summarization, visualization, routing, filtering, and 

support for new types of artifact-supported collaboration and communication. They should improve 

with changes in the emerging networked world, yet provide continuity with the past, building on 

traditional values. 

Thinking of a library as institution, there may be value in the concept of a US National Digital Library, 

supporting search and other services. NSF is developing NSDL, the National Science (Mathematics, 

Engineering, and Technology Education) Digital Library,20 to open Fall 2002, and this has caught the 

imagination of educators and will have a profound impact on education in the nation. The California 

Digital Library may have some of the same effect in that state. If the scope of the Library of Congress 

and National Archives will stay roughly the same, it seems that there is incomplete coverage in the US 

in our current situation, though we do have Library of Congress, National Library of Medicine, 

National Agricultural Library, NSDL, etc. There is no digital library covering all fields (with respect 

to what is generated by the government, deposited according to its laws, or collected by it), even 

virtually. 

Registration

In the United States, information about various topics is collected by different agencies. Often, the 

agencies that collect these data work independently of each other. This leads to difficulties regarding 

"registration". The registration problem arises when there is no way to align data for proper 

organization and integration. Ideally, different types of information can be aligned to produce multiple 

different views or perspectives that may not be evident from a single document. For example the 

percentages of different illness affecting children who are 5-9 years old may be collected by one 

government agency. Reports about the levels of various metals in the soil may be produced by another 

agency. There may be a possible link between the presence of various metals in the soil and the 

weakened immunity of children of a particular age group in that area. To illustrate further, a 

government agency may supply maps and other cartographic information about a particular locality. 

There might be another agency that produces information about the layout of utility lines, water pipes, 

drainage system, and the like for a given area. Before undertaking some repair work for the drainage 

system there may be information that could be derived from aerial photographs of the locality. This 

might lead to shorter decision times for servicing and repairing drainage systems. The absence of any 

form of registration makes the extraction of these types of conclusions almost impossible. Digital 

libraries may benefit from frameworks, using metadata, standards, and conventions, which allow 

registration of information artifacts. 

Retrieval Mechanisms

Once the information is stored in a distributed manner across the country and once registration issues 

are resolved, the next step would be to create mechanisms that retrieve relevant information for users. 

These mechanisms require the creation of suitable user interfaces for all segments of the population. 

For example a scientist searching for recent speeches by Nobel Prize winners in physics might also 

 

20 The NSDL site is http://www.smete.org/.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-62 

wish to look at related publications. In other scenarios users may try to find information on topics for 

which they have little background. Further, interfaces should not only try to present the information 

retrieved but also provide mechanisms that allow users to restrict the context of the information 

artifact. Otherwise, if a person searches for stars, the digital library might retrieve documents related to 

entertainment stars, astronomy, songs that contains stars in their lyrics (like the Star Spangled 

Banner)—all very different contexts. 

Retrieval mechanisms also need to be supported for the next generation of mobile computing devices 

since they increase the accessibility of information relative to the various facets of daily life. Such 

approaches, along with improved kiosks and programs to improve access in schools and public 

libraries, may complement ongoing efforts to eliminate the digital divide. 

INFORMATION UTILIZATION 

This section looks at the issues related to preservation of information artifacts. This is extremely 

important in the information lifecycle because information artifacts generated in the future need to 

refer to information produced in the past. 

Preservation

Documents need to be preserved such that the context and the history behind the creation of the 

document are stored in ways that make it easy to retrieve and comprehend. This would allow people in 

the future to effectively evaluate reports that were produced in the past, with the correct perspective. 

Also, digital libraries have to cope with the migration of the documents stored in older formats to 

newer formats. 

There continues to be a rapid change in technology that makes digital media obsolete very quickly. 

For example, as new storage formats evolve, storage capacity increases but at the same time the 

playback devices for older media become obsolete. 

Digital storage media are usually fragile compared to paper. Therefore to maintain a collection in 

digital media regular checks of the information artifacts become necessary. Also it becomes important 

that the data is mirrored at certain remote locations. This gives rise to legal and copyright issues, as the 

information artifacts need to be periodically copied. For example, the Internet Archive 

(www.internetarchive.org) today plays a valuable role in archiving the Internet. But it may not actually 

follow the letter of the law since it is a business drawing upon copyright materials, without 

authorization from copyright holders. 

Some extremely pertinent points are raised by the report on Digital Strategy for the Library of 

Congress21 in this regard. The preservation responsibilities can be classified into loosely defined 

categories like: 

1. a creator, active collector, and primary custodian for digital information artifacts; 

2. a partner in preserving distributed digital collections. 

 

21 National Research Council, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board. LC21: A Digital Strategy for the Library of 

Congress. Washington, DC: National Academy Press (2001). This reference is to a prepublication copy, dated July 26, 2000. 

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/0a254cd9b53e0bc585256777004e74d3/bd6c8fce95b00a6d852569280047753a?

OpenDocument. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-63 

Initiatives in the direction of assigning stable, long-term responsibilities to organizations like the 

Library of Congress would help in preservation activities for digital libraries. 

CONCLUSION 

This paper looks at the information lifecycle in the context of modern technology. It discusses aspects 

of Internet enabled publishing and other changes facilitated by digital libraries. It recommends further 

support of research to improve retrieval, as well as of mechanisms to reduce the digital divide. Further, 

it highlights key requirements, e.g., that government information artifacts must have their content and 

context preserved. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-64 

APPENDIX 21. CREATING THE MAGIC OF INFORMATION 

CREATING THE MAGIC OF INFORMATION: 

A private sector information industry comment

Written by Paul G. Zurkowski 

Founding President of the Information Industry Association and 

Member of the NCLIS Group of Experts for This Assessment 

INTRODUCTION22

The United States National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) draft report, 

"A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination," is a masterful and cogent job of 

mustering the facts and good arguments relative to government and government perceptions of what 

must be done to make its information available to the public in the Internet age. 

Unfortunately, it is but half the job facing the decision-makers in trying to decide on the future of 

these activities. 

As the founding president of the Information Industry Association, beginning in January 1969, I had 

the benefit of working with senior executives of this industry for more than 20 years in helping shape 

its evolution as a major component of the American economy. It was the leaders of the on-line 

information industry, Roger Summit with Lockheed Information Services and Carlos Cuadra with 

System Development Corporation On-line Services (the distribution part of the information industry), 

their data base suppliers (the production part of the information industry) and the retail part of the 

information industry made up of information retailers, people skilled in utilizing existing information 

services to meet the needs of their customers, which together popularized on-line access to valuepriced information services worldwide and were the forerunners of the internet age. 

Unfortunately, the business lessons learned from that period forward have largely been lost on the 

Internet generation, which, ironically, itself grew out of the information industry's work and 

experience. For purposes of this discussion, the information industry's particular experience in dealing 

with government information marketing efforts is essential to crafting elements of the solution to the 

problems. This report seeks to identify and mobilize those elements. 

However, the Commission's draft report avoids even a discussion of the lessons learned by the 

information and publishing industry. We need to combine government experience reflected so 

effectively in this draft report, and the information industry's experiences and resources, in order to 

achieve the results this report seeks. 

Some of these issues are high lighted in the following "Ten Commandments for the Internet Age." 

 

22 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen21.pdf. This appendix was last revised on December 5, 2000. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-65 

TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR THE INTERNET AGE 

1. Thou shall be more sensitive to information as a wealth-generating vehicle. 

If there is no prospect of economic gain involved with making information content available, there 

will be fewer jobs and less wealth generation. Information capabilities are one of this nation's most 

potent exports. Content is to wealth generation in the Internet age, as raw materials were to wealth 

generation in the industrial age. 

2. Thou shall recognize that information has value in direct proportion to what is at stake in a 

decision 

My most favorite quote is from one of my most favorite information guru Chris Burns: "Information 

content is not homogeneous or all of it of equal value, and it must be target-marketed." 

Three examples of pricing methods used in targeting a market are: 

a. Value pricing. 

For content that has a specialized and time-sensitive value to a niche market. 

The services of the Bureau of National Affairs in Washington is but one example of a company 

successfully specializing in acquiring government information in a timely fashion utilizing all manner 

of media to make it available to not only its specialized markets but the public at large on an exacting 

time basis (The regular reporting of Bureau of Labor Statistics figures so critical to the national 

economy, is one example of BNA's offerings). Value pricing allows the information company to 

determine what the value of its services is to its customers. Can the information be garnered elsewhere 

in the time required? What time and resources are saved by the delivery of its information? A lot of 

things get factored in to setting a value price, little or none of which is cost of production. 

b. Commodity pricing. 

For content that serves broad sectors of the general public. 

In the book publishing industry there is a pricing system tied to cost of production called the theory of 

thirds: one third for the cost of producing the information product, one third for marketing and 

distributing the information product and one third for return on investment, taxes and profits. A 

premium may be added for popular authors whose followings may permit a slight bump in the 

bookstore price. Library purchases often guarantee the financial and distribution success of the 

product. The pricing of a commodity leaves little flexibility for the publisher. 

c. Marginal pricing. 

For content being distributed to achieve social goals, assisting the handicapped, educating the havenots, etc. 

In this case, only marginal costs of providing information to a user are included in the price. It is 

important, therefore, that government understand what government information relates to what market, 

for if it tries to treat all information as appropriate for marginal pricing or even in some cases 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-66 

commodity pricing, Gresham's law will apply. The marginal price will tend to drive goods priced 

otherwise out of the market, with the result that major segments of the economy are poorly served and 

wealth-generation based on innovation, timeliness and effective marketing will be voided. 

3. Thou shall recognize the benefit to the public of publishing rather than "privishing" an 

information service. 

Jim Adler's Congressional Information Service was innovative and incredibly working with the staffs 

of more than 250 congressional committees and subcommittees in order to gather the daily output of 

the Congress (hearings, reports and all the output of Congressional Committees other than the 

Congressional Record) organize it coherently and make it available to the world in microfilm with online search tools. In addition, at a time when the Library of Congress was considering discontinuing its 

microfilm publication of all congressional bills and resolutions the Congressional Information Service 

took over their publication at a cost to consumers less than a third of the price offered by the Library 

of Congress. This was possible by virtue of CIS's marketing effort, which more than quintupled the 

market for the product. Mr. Adler tells the story of his marketing of a book while employed by a 

publishing house. His boss said he hadn't published it but had "privished" it. There is a significant 

difference. 

4. Thou shall look to the private sector for significant innovation. 

When the Congress first passed the income tax laws, two New York University law professors set out 

to publish the tax laws and regulations. They found that by the time the books had been printed there 

already were numerous amendments. What to do? They severed the bindings, punched holes in the 

pages, added pages to incorporate the amendments, new regulations and changes in the law and 

produced the first loose leaf tax service under the name Prentice Hall (the maiden name of each of 

their mothers) a service that faces a lot of competition today. 

The on-line revolution was led by two pioneers, Roger Summit of Lockheed and Carlos Cuadra of 

SDC, who sweated through the software, marketing, storage and retrieval problems for a vast array of 

databases, including, incidentally, NTIS, for distribution on-line through the application of ARPAnet's 

packet switching capabilities. Their biggest contribution was to wrench users out of their trained 

Incapacity to use online tools. They are excellent examples of the innovation required. Without their 

20-year efforts at this unprecedented undertaking, the Internet would have been much slower in its rise 

to dominance. 

Examples of private sector innovation abound. Find-SVP is but one of a very large group of 

companies providing "retail" access to the information resources accessible in print and on-line which 

rely on skilled librarians to sharpen the customer's focus on the exact question for which the customer 

seeks an answer and to expertly search the relevant knowledge base. 

Software designers developed the software by which many information producers arrayed their 

information content to be accessible online as well as in print. Where do you think HTML came from? 

The Information Industry Association, which organized this plethora of exciting and innovating 

companies, helped industry, the public and government recognize and deal with this group of highly 

creative and independent companies as a new industry. IIA's efforts helped facilitate the sharing of 

experience and the growth and expansion of the industry. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-67 

5. Thou shall not assume a monopoly position in the distribution of government information. 

Access to government information is maximized by assuring competition in its distribution. No single 

entity can imagine all the appropriate means and formats and marketing approaches needed to make 

information available to all with a need for it in our complex economy. 

The first full-text collection of legal case opinions was created by Mead Data Central in the form of a 

service called Lexis. They later added a full-text service called Nexis for news information. Lexis has 

had a far-reaching impact on legal education and the practice of law. In education Mead focused on 

training law students in the use of their system, which paid off as these young lawyers started asking 

their new employer law firms to subscribe to the service. West Publishing was several years behind in 

introducing its Westlaw service, because of a casebook mind-set. West's home office in Minnesota 

even carried the words "Law Books." West did not immediately see or react to the market Mead 

developed because Mead's product did not significantly affect the market for law books. Now the legal 

market is the beneficiary of a high level of on-line competition. If the government had created and 

marketed this product at marginal cost levels, neither of these premiere information publishers would 

have been able to enter the market or to apply value pricing to its services—to the severe disadvantage 

of the legal profession. 

6. Thou shall seek to learn the marketplace lessons of other-than-government information 

undertakings. 

In the financial markets area important information is being spun off of transactions in the market. 

(This information is necessary to the making of very important decisions and is priced accordingly.) 

Each of the stock exchanges is served by a wide variety of information services packaging and 

distributing information vital to the operation of our national economy and published by private 

corporations. The stock exchanges, which themselves have obvious information skills and capabilities, 

have found it in their own best interest to facilitate the financial information services offered by such 

companies as Dow Jones & Company, several McGraw Hill companies and many, many others. 

In the case of McGraw-Hill, its bond information service developed a major innovation when it 

provided the information in ink-print and on-line because they found that that is what their clients 

wanted and would pay for. The conventional wisdom at the time was that on-line information would 

kill the market for ink-print products. Reaching that profitable decision involved a significant 

investment in market research. 

7. Thou shall encourage private sector firms to develop information search tools. 

In the legal field, a good example is Shepard's Citation Service. A turn of the 19th century capability 

serving lawyers and courts is a service, which relates every case to every case cited in a decision, 

whether it was affirmed, distinguished or overruled. Shepard's Citation service is a classic example of 

a private sector firm getting control over a large collection of information in order to serve a specific 

niche market with a less than full text information tool essential to the operation of that market 

segment. 

In the scientific field, Dr. Eugene Garfield, at the Institute for Scientific Information, applied the 

citation concept developed by Shepard to the complex field of science research and publishing. It 

proved to be a significantly less expensive way of identifying relevant research in the literature since it 

did not involve abstracting each article but tagged important information by typists typing the journal 

article title in a citation mode. Garfield also was able to diagram an area of research by identifying 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-68 

what research cited what articles ultimately identifying the lead piece of research by the number of 

articles citing the lead article. This diagramming capability also identified all the participants in a 

particular area of research—to the ultimate gain of our scientific apparatus and the general public. 

To get a new and unprecedented product off the ground took clever deep-pocket marketing strategies. 

Such a service won't evolve for E-government subjects unless incentives and legal protections are 

provided. 

A contrary experience was that of a company that sought to index the Congressional Record on a daily 

basis for early morning same day delivery. Experts who regularly read the Record in their jobs were 

sought across government and the private sector each to abstract a segment down to every discrete 

entry in the Record in early pre-dawn hours daily. This level of abstracting eventually became too 

costly to maintain. 

8. Thou shall honor Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. 

Our founding fathers placed a high value on copyright. It grew out of their revolutionary era 

experience with England's Crown Copyright. The PIRA23 of that era (please pardon a private sector 

concern about the power of government in this critical area) was the Stationers Company, which was 

authorized by the King to grant Crown Copyrights to publishers. A Crown Copyright was necessary 

for a publisher to publish. The first newspaper in the colonies was the Boston Newsletter (Readex 

Corporation memorialized this historic event by providing me a copy of their microfilm collection of 

early American newspapers which leads off with the Boston Newsletter). When the Boston Newsletter 

supported the Boston tea party, the Stationers Company labeled it a seditious newspaper and revoked 

its Crown Copyright and its right to publish. This was such a piercing fact of revolutionary life that the 

founding fathers took care of the problem in Article I. Since the freedom of speech and press 

provisions waited for the Bill of Rights, you can appreciate the significance they attached to their 

copyright solution to the Crown Copyright problem. 

The copyright provisions of the Constitution were considered key benefits of the revolution because 

they took copyright away from the government and gave ordinary citizens ownership of the products 

of their minds. This concept seems right for our time as well. 

An equity argument can be made as the basis for providing protection to private sector companies, 

which develop search tools, which may not rise to the level of copyrightability. Some attention should 

be given to a national unfair competition statute which would encourage innovation in these areas by 

protecting the innovator against someone standing on his shoulders and stealing his work product 

(reaping where he or she hasn't sown). 

9. Thou shall forget the Public/Private Partnership idea. 

Information content is a unique, but real, economic good. The public/private partnership idea has 

outlived its usefulness in efforts to sort out a government/industry relationship to deal with this unique 

economic good. A first step would be the creation of a business relationship based on mutual respect 

for each other. Secondly, it must be recognized that incentives are needed in order to mobilize the 

totality of resources available in this country. Just reading this NCLIS report makes clear the country 

faces a huge challenge and all parts of the economy need to be melded together to meet the challenge. 

 

23 The Public Information Resources Administration (PIRA), proposed by the Commission. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-69 

If the national goal is to provide information directly to affected communities of citizens, one way to 

do so is to seek out and rely on companies which have created a market for information and are 

currently serving a specific targeted community. It's being done in the library community where the 

community served by specific libraries benefit from access to government information. Devise, or call 

on private sector firms to devise, incentivised ways to funnel the government information to 

populations in the markets they serve. These efforts can be redundant if the right incentives can be 

worked out. Government must recognize that these functions cost real money and that incentives to 

invest the money needed to do the job are necessary. Putting government capital at risk behind a 

government marketing scheme should not be considered. For most market segments there are a 

multiplicity of information services capable of implementing workable dissemination schemes. These 

are not public-private partnerships but simply good, day-to-day business relations. Make them a fact of 

life, rather than an idealized public-private "partnership." Few business experts recommend a 

partnership as the best vehicle for economic activity. 

Does the government label computer manufacturers or other hardware and software or 

communications companies "public/private partners" when the government purchases computers, 

software or communications services to enter, organize and use the Internet to disseminate 

information? 

10. Thou shall not directly engage in government marketing of information. 

The use of tax money by government personnel undisciplined in market-place factors and experience 

to do what the private sector has experience doing and is engaged in doing is inappropriate and 

unconscionable from a taxpaying information company viewpoint. Nor is it appropriate for a 

government-funded entity to be proprietary about its tax-supported information content to the extent of 

excluding or limiting private sector marketing and distribution efforts. The partnership idea seems to 

grow out of a kind of dog-in-the-manger attitude: "This is our information and we must control it." It 

isn't a question of the rights of government ownership, but one of accomplishing the most effective 

dissemination. 

The role of government should be to ensure the operation of a fair, open and competitive information 

marketplace so as to ensure that all citizens participate and benefit from its expansion and the wealth 

the activities generate. In fact, this concept of a fair, open and competitive marketplace, including the 

Internet experience, is a concomitant element of the ascendancy of democracy worldwide. 

How best can government and industry profitably reach out to the growing worldwide market for 

information, both privately and publicly generated and disseminated? 

Certainly these are some of the considerations, which should not just appear in, but also be a driving 

force of the NCLIS report. 

CONCLUSION: INFORMATION IS MAGIC! 

Businesses like the Lockheed, SDC, Institute of Scientific Information, Shepard's, Bureau of National 

Affairs, Congressional Information Service, Dow Jones, McGraw Hill, Mead Data Central, West 

Publishing (some of which have changed ownership over the years) and the whole information 

industry deserve the confidence of the government and the American people based on their awesome 

wealth-generating capabilities, all in the service of specific niche markets across the United States and 

the world. Each of these companies has demonstrated that the right information at the right time is 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-70 

magic for the person or business who can find it, recognize it and capitalize on it. They are 

experienced in creating this magic from all manner and means of information. That is the basis of 

wealth generation in information. Incorporation of their capabilities in support of the mission of this 

report is imperative if it is to be successful. 

The information business is an ever-expanding universe. Government should fully tap into its 

capabilities to accomplish its creative and distribution objectives, but a better meeting of the minds in 

this field is required to create the climate within which that can happen. 

It is imperative that private information services become an integral part of the government and 

Internet paradigm. 

Toward that end, a major private sector conference focusing on content as an economic good should 

be held to assist in completing the second half of this report. 

Thank you for allowing me to share these thoughts with everyone who is persevering in efforts to 

identify and achieve the best of all possible results in this area. Thank you for your continued 

diligence. 

In this connection, I recommend that a major conference be held focusing on ways to harness private 

sector capabilities in disseminating government information content. Many, many information and 

Internet companies have things at stake in this arena and need to be encouraged to focus on how they 

can use their entrée and good will in their targeted markets to help facilitate the government's 

important dissemination mission. I personally organized such a conference from which was born the 

Publisher Copyright Clearinghouse, in that case the private sector publishers and information 

companies There clearly is a need for as comprehensive a statement of these capabilities to match up 

with the current statement of government information functions already present in the report. A 

conference is one tool to get those capabilities to surface in support of this mission. 

There is both energy and expertise in the private section without which you will not do as good a job 

of getting information out to people in a form that is useable, as you would like. It would be foolish to 

try to do the job without that energy and expertise and it would be inappropriate to try to duplicate it in 

the public sector. That's called reinventing the wheel. 

Thank you for allowing me to share these thoughts with everyone who is persevering in efforts to 

identify and achieve the best of all possible results in this area. Thank you for your diligence. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-71 

APPENDIX 22. STUDY PANELS AND GROUP OF EXPERTS MEMBERSHIPS 

Note: This is a final list of members for each of the four panels, and for the Group of 

Experts, as of October 23, 2000. These are special groups that NCLIS established to 

assist the Commission in formulating findings, conclusions, and recommendations, 

and/or reviewing and critiquing those findings and recommendations, for the 

Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination. 

FINAL PANEL AND GROUP OF EXPERTS MEMBERSHIPS 

FOR THE NCLIS COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT 

OF PUBLIC INFORMATION DISSEMINATION24

PANEL ONE—NTIS BUSINESS MODEL 

Chair: Peter Urbach, Retired, former Deputy Director, National Technical Information Service 

(NTIS), former publishing industry executive 

 

Members: 

Kenneth Allen, Executive Vice President & CEO National Newspaper Association, formerly 

OMB/OIRA Staff 

Steve Arnold, President, Arnold Information Technology 

Ernest G. Baldwin, Director, Library Program Service, Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 

Government Printing Office (GPO) 

Mel Day, Retired, former Director, National Technical Information Service (NTIS), former Deputy 

Director, National Library of Medicine (NLM) 

Mike Majcher, Retired, former Manager, Technical Information Center, Xerox Corporation 

Steve Needle, Assistant to Director, National Technical Information Service (NTIS) 

Kent Smith, Deputy Director, NLM 

Tim Sprehe, Sprehe Information Management Associates, formerly OMB/OIRA 

Kenneth Wiggin, State Librarian, Connecticut State Library 

Jay Young, Retired, former Director, Sales Service and Director, Library Programs, Superintendent of 

Documents/GPO 

 

24 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen22.pdf and at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/panelmem.html. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-72 

PANEL TWO—INTERNAL GOVERNMENT USERS 

Chair: Kurt Molholm, Administrator, Defense Technical Information Center, and Chair, CENDI 

 

Members: 

Owen Ambur, Systems Analyst, Division of Information Resources Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior 

Lawrence Brandt, Program Director for Digital Government, National Science Foundation (NSF) 

Jonda Byrd, National Library Network Program Manager, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Bonnie Carroll, Executive Director, CENDI, and President, Information International Associates 

Blane Dessy, Director, Library Staff, Department of Justice, and Vice Chair, Federal Library and 

Information Center Committee (FLICC) 

T. C. Evans, Assistant Director, Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services, U.S. 

Government Printing Office (GPO) 

Walter Finch, Associate Director for Business Development, National Technical Information Service 

(NTIS) 

Patrice McDermott, Co-Director, Agenda for Access, OMB Watch 

Ray Mosley, Director, Office of the Federal Register (OFR), National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA) 

Al Pesachowitz, Director, IT Consulting, Grant Thornton LLP, formerly CIO, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and Vice Chairman, CIO Council 

George J. Roncaglia, Head, Scientific and Technical Information Program Office, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

John A. Shuler, Richard J. Daily Library, University of Illinois at Chicago 

Kent Smith, Deputy Director, National Library of Medicine (NLM) 

J. Timothy Sprehe, Sprehe Information Management Associates, Inc. 

Susan Tarr, Executive Director, Federal Library and Information Center Committee (FLICC), 

Library of Congress 

Walter Warnick, Director, Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Department of Energy 

Observers: Ann Miller, Duke University and President, Government Documents Roundtable 

(GODORT) of the American Library Association (ALA), and Lynne Bradley, Washington Office, 

American Library Association (ALA) 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-73 

PANEL THREE—EXTERNAL (TO GOVERNMENT) USERS 

Chair: Miriam Drake, Dean and Director of Libraries, Georgia Institute of Technology 

Members: 

Prudence Adler, Association of Research Libraries 

Lewis Bellardo, Deputy Archivist of the United States, National Archives and Records 

Administration 

Kevin Donovan, Environmental Protection Agency 

Sharon Hogan, University of Illinois, Chicago 

Barbie Keiser, Information Resources Management Consultant 

Diane Nester Kresh, Library of Congress 

Bernie Margolis, Boston Public Library 

Jim McGinty, Cambridge Information Group 

Barbara Peterson, 3M Library and Information Services 

Barbara Quint, Searcher Magazine 

Dale Stanley, Pfizer, Inc. 

Rick Weingarten, American Library Association 

Freida Weise, University of Maryland 

Gladys Ann Wells, Director and State Librarian, Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records 

PANEL FOUR—PUBLIC-PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS 

Chair: Wayne Kelley, Retired, former Superintendent of Documents, GPO, former industry executive 

Members: Mary Alice Baish, American Association of Law Libraries 

Francis Buckley, Superintendent of Documents, U.S. government Printing Office 

Anne Caputo, Special Libraries Association 

Blane Dessy, Director, Library Staff, Department of Justice 

Dan Duncan, Consultant, former Vice President for Public Relations, Software and Information 

Industry Association, and previously Information Industry Association 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-74 

Wally Finch, Associate Director for Business Development, National Technical Information Service 

Neal Gregory, Consultant 

Donald Hagen, Bernan Associates 

Richard Kaser, Executive Director, National Federation of Abstracting and Information Services 

(NFAIS) 

Nancy Kranich, President, American Library Association 

David LeDuc, Software and Information Industry Association 

Edwin Levine, Chief Information Officer, Environmental Protection Agency 

Eric Massant, Reed Elsevier, Inc. 

Peyton Neal, Consultant, PRN Associates 

James Nelson, State Librarian and Commissioner for Libraries and Archives, Kentucky 

Roxanne Williams, formerly U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Observers: Lynne Bradley, American Library Association; Steve Buckley, Radian, Inc. 

GROUP OF EXPERTS 

Christopher Burns, President, Christopher Burns Inc. 

Edward A. Fox, Director, Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, NDLTD, and 

Professor, Department of Computer Science, Virginia Tech 

Robert M. Hayes, Professor Emeritus, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, UCLA 

Don Langenberg, Chancellor, University System of Maryland 

M. Stuart Lynn, Retired, and formerly Associate Vice President, Information Resources & 

Communications, Office of the President, University of California 

Deanna Marcum, President, Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR) 

Raymond T. Nimmer, Leonard Childs Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center 

Henry Perritt, Dean, Vice President and Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Chicago 

Ron Plesser, Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe LLP 

William H. Price, Retired, and Former Director, Foreign Affairs Information Center, Department of 

State 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-75 

Carol A. Risher, Senior Vice President, Business Development, Savantech, Inc. 

Thomas Susman, Ropes & Gray 

Paul Uhlir, National Academy of Sciences 

Paul Zurkowski, Newspaper Editor, and former President, Information Industry Association 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-76 

APPENDIX 23. PANEL ONE: FINAL REPORT ON A REFORMED NTIS BUSINESS 

MODEL FOR THE INTERNET AGE 

This and the other three panel reports were submitted to the U.S. National 

Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) as part of the assessment. 

However, the opinions are those of the panel members, not necessarily those of the 

Commission. Any panel recommendations that the Commission has accepted are 

reflected in the Commission's own recommendations in A Comprehensive Assessment 

of Public Information Resources, Volume 1. 

REPORT OF STUDY PANEL NUMBER ONE:

REFORMING THE NTIS BUSINESS MODEL FOR THE INFORMATION AGE 

CONTENTS25

Introduction 

The NTIS Business Model—What Went Wrong? 

Is There a Need for NTIS in the Internet Age? 

Scope of the NTIS Collection 

NTIS Operations in the Internet Age 

NTIS Mission 

A "New" Business Model for NTIS 

Depository Libraries 

Reorganization of Government Information Activities 

Recommendations 

Panel 1, Appendix A, Members of Panel 1 

Panel 1, Appendix B, NTIS Estimates of Funding 

INTRODUCTION 

The assignment of Panel One was to focus on the business model of NTIS and recommend a new 

business model for NTIS for the Internet age. The work done in the first phase of the NCLIS study of 

NTIS suggested that the current business model—full cost recovery—was a major contributor to the 

current fiscal instability of the organization. The Panel concluded that proposing a new business model 

for NTIS in itself would not be sufficient but that a broader look at NTIS, its mission, its relationship 

to other Government information organizations and its role in the Internet age was needed. This report 

sets forth the Panel's views and conclusions. 

The Panel—consisting of eleven members, a diverse mix of representatives of industry, Federal and 

state government, consultants, and trade associations—conducted its work exclusively by e-mail 

exchanges with no face-to-face meetings. The Panel conducted e-mail correspondence over a twomonth period from late July to late September 2000. The members of the Panel are listed in Appendix 

A. 

 

25 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen23.pdf. This report was last revised on October 15, 2000. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-77 

The preliminary report from the first phase of the NCLIS NTIS study contains many of the same 

conclusions and recommendation reached by this Panel.26 The Panel reviewed this preliminary work 

and sought to expand those conclusions with which the Panel was in agreement. 

THE NTIS BUSINESS MODEL—WHAT WENT WRONG? 

NTIS is a federal agency, not a hot Internet startup. Thus, when we speak of the NTIS business model 

we refer to the way in which NTIS obtains its funding (appropriations, sales income, or 

reimbursements from other agencies) not whether it obtains its revenue from banner ads, charging for 

links or auction services. 

In the 1970's and earlier, NTIS and its predecessor organizations received a mix of funding from 

appropriations, sales income and reimbursements from other agencies. The basic business model, 

however, was sales based with report sales and subscription income generating the lion's share of 

revenue. Appropriations in the earlier years were used primarily for the costs associated with acquiring 

publications and for processing the publications into the NTIS collection—the costs of indexing 

abstracting, creating master microfiche and archiving master copies. Sales income was recovered from 

the purchasers of publications and subscription services, essentially for the incremental costs of 

providing these services, although in later years excess sales income was also used for input 

processing to offset declining appropriations. Reimbursements from other agencies were received to 

cover the costs of the services provided to these agencies. 

Over the years there was an ongoing pressure to reduce appropriations and increase sales income and 

in good times—with many new publications coming in and with substantial sales—this was feasible. 

Increasing prices and new products combined with growing sales volume contributed to growing sales 

income. In fact, all appropriations for input processing were phased out by 1977 and sales income was 

used to pay all input costs from that point on. 

In 1992, as part of the American Technology Preeminence Act (15 USC 3074b-1), Congress added the 

requirement that "operating costs...associated with the acquisition, processing, storage, bibliographic 

control, and archiving of information and documents shall be recovered primarily through the 

collection of fees." This had the effect of locking in the practice of shifting the costs for the central 

collection and initial processing of the NTIS publications for public availability from the general 

taxpayer to the purchaser of NTIS products and services. The Government was essentially abandoning 

responsibility for paying for the management and organization of its information, the very library-like 

functions that have always been taxpayer-financed. The report buyer—whose tax dollars had already 

paid for the agency research and the preparation of the research report itself and who was being 

charged the incremental cost of distribution of the report—was now also being asked to pay the costs 

of making the reports accessible to the public through a central repository. 

This had the effect of making NTIS more entrepreneurial and aggressive in its business dealings to 

raise the operating funds lost in the appropriation. Competition with the Superintendent of Documents 

for popular titles increased with NTIS seeking to offer the publication-originating agency a more 

attractive arrangement to secure the publication for its list. Deals were struck with private vendors a 

development that had the Commerce Department Inspector General "...concerned that in order to 

replace lost sales, NTIS is seeking business opportunities on the perimeter of its statutory mission, 

 

26 US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Preliminary Assessment of the Proposed Closure of the 

National Technical Information Service (NTIS): A Report to the President and the Congress, Washington, DC: Government 

Printing Office, March 2000; http://www.nclis.gov/govt/ntis/presiden.pdf. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-78 

where it risks competing against private businesses." (Department of Commerce, Inspector General's 

Semiannual Report to the Congress of March 31 1999, page 14) 

Concurrently, in the late 1980's and 1990's, because of the strong economy there was a shift from 

publicly funded research to private research and as a consequence the number of Government research 

reports provided to NTIS declined. At the same time, with the growth of the Internet, agencies began 

to make their research reports available on agency Web sites for free, competing with NTIS report 

sales. The combination of lower new report input (a 35% drop in items added to the collection from 

1993 to 1998) and competing free sources for the information NTIS sold, resulted in declining sales (a 

43% drop in publications sold from 1993 to 1998). This in turn led to the financial difficulties of 

NTIS. In August 1999, based on these financial difficulties and political considerations beyond NTIS' 

control—possibly relating to the Govsearch and World News Connection controversies,—the 

Department of Commerce recommended the closing of NTIS and the transfer of its archive to the 

Library of Congress. 

It cannot be a surprise that the combination of events—lower report input, competition with free 

agency Web sites, loss of appropriated funds, aggressive entrepreneurial zeal with perhaps 

inappropriate business arrangements—led to financial and other difficulties for NTIS. However, it 

does not follow that the Government should therefore abandon the notion of a central source for 

Government technical information charged with making this information accessible to the Public. 

If the Department of Commerce proposal to close NTIS is adopted, there is no need for a new NTIS 

business model for the Internet age. Therefore, before we explore a new business model we must first 

determine whether there is a need for an NTIS in the Internet age. 

IS THERE A NEED FOR NTIS IN THE INTERNET AGE? 

If the picture painted in the Department of Commerce Fact Sheet and Press Release (Department of 

Commerce August 12, 1999) is correct, all agencies will mount all of their publications and reports on 

their own Web sites, which are then kept there as long as the public has a need to access the 

information. Powerful search engines search the full text of all the reports across all agency sites to 

identify the specific information the public user requires. The identified full text of the publication is 

then available for free downloading from the agency Web site. Thus, the public has free access to all 

Government information all of the time and anything required can be located with ease and there is no 

need for a central NTIS, a central Superintendent of Documents or any central document locating 

service or information accessing tools. This picture, however, is not anywhere near accurate. 

Unfortunately, not all of each agency's public information is available on the agency's Web site and 

perhaps much of it never will be. What is there today may not be there tomorrow. Not all of the 

information on the Web can be searched and found with the search engines. Can the United States 

afford to rely upon the simplistic and utopian picture painted by the Department of Commerce and 

close down its central information repositories? 

Certainly, specific Commerce publications, as cited in the Commerce Fact Sheet in August of 1999 are 

available on the Commerce Web site. (The Commerce Fact Sheet cites two high profile policy studies 

as examples). But how long will they be maintained on the Department's Web site and how about the 

many less prominent Department studies not on the Web site? How about those studies paid for with 

taxpayer funds whose results do not support the Department's policy positions? Will they be featured 

on the Department's Web site? Will even the most sophisticated search engines locate them? 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-79 

The two Commerce publications cited in the example above were published in late 1998 and 1999 and 

Commerce has them on their Web site for public access. How about older publications, say those predating 1996 and the use of the Web for public access of Government documents? Most of these are not 

available in electronic form for Web mounting. Does Commerce intend to invest millions of dollars in 

converting these older documents to Web-ready form? Does Commerce expect other agencies to do 

so? At whose expense and with what funds? Note that 36% of NTIS' report titles sold in 1998 were 

over 10 years old. Agency based Web servers cannot meet this demand unless substantial investment 

in backfile conversion is made. Or should we simply assume that anything not in Web-ready form that 

was previously published is of no value to the public and no longer requires public access? 

Agency Web sites are intended to provide agency information (and perhaps external information 

related to the agency mission) to the agency's constituency in support of the agency's mission. That 

may not be consistent with providing Government information to those members of the general public 

not specifically associated with the agency mission. For example, the Defense Department is 

responsible for providing access to its extensive collection of research reports to its internal scientists 

and engineers and its large contractor community. How much effort should DOD expend to insure that 

non-defense related users have adequate access to this information and how concerned should the 

Defense Appropriation Committees be with this? Will a Web site designed to meet the needs of the 

Defense community always meet the needs of a non-defense related university researcher or small 

businessman? Should it? The fundamental mission of providing access to Government information to 

avoid duplication of research effort and to promote economic growth—a mission that might at one 

time have been thought to be a part of the Department of Commerce—gets lost in the specific 

missions of the various agencies and their Web sites. 

Having Defense (as well as other mission agencies) make its (their) technical information available to 

the general public as a near-free by-product of meeting its mission needs is worthwhile and should be 

encouraged. It is not, however, sufficient to fulfill the Government's responsibility to make 

Government information available to the public. There needs to be a clear focus on public information 

dissemination, which is not likely to be present (all the time) in the mission agencies. That is the role 

for NTIS. 

There also needs to be a back-up mechanism, a safety net, to insure that what the mission agency does 

not disseminate or does not mount on its Web site, or takes down or does not properly process for 

public access is still accessible to the public. That is the role for NTIS. Clearly a central information 

service needs to take advantage of each mission agency's efforts to distribute the agency's information 

to minimize duplicative costs but it also must be prepared to step in and provide access when the 

mission agency does not. That is the role for NTIS. 

As mentioned above, there is the rather significant matter of providing access to the tens of thousands 

of valuable reports and publications that are not in Web-ready form. These require either expensive 

conversion to Web-ready form or old-technology reproduction and represent at least one half of the 

total current NTIS demand. Clearly, there is a role here for NTIS. 

In addition to mounting the full text of some of their reports on their Web sites and thereby providing 

some public access, the mission agencies may also provide some finding tools to identify reports 

sought by users. These tools might include some indexing, abstracting and cataloging of the reports 

and publications. Or they might not, as is the case with the two Commerce Department examples. The 

tools might include a search engine on the Web site to locate reports or the site might rely upon users 

accessing commercial Web search engines to locate reports on the site. The search engines will work 

for some reports but not for others. Where reports and publications are stored in PDF image form 

without a full text search capability neither the search engine on the site or the commercial search 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-80 

engine will find the document. Where the agency chooses—for more efficient searching of its 

material—to store its reports and publications in a separate searchable database on its Web site, an 

external search engine will not be able to search the contents of the database and the reports will not be 

found. 

Some of these shortcomings can and probably will be overcome in time. Once standards are set and 

adhered to some of these access problems will disappear. As the technology improves more of these 

problems will disappear. But today, with the current state of the Internet, standards and technology, 

public access to agency publications via agency Web sites is very much a hit or miss proposition. 

Once again, there is a need for a back-up mechanism, a safety net, to insure that the public has access 

to the mission agency reports and publications. That is the role for NTIS. 

The Government Information Locator System (GILS) established under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 might have been expected to solve some of these problems and perhaps to a very limited 

extent it has. However, GILS has not been widely implemented throughout the Government. The 

GILS record structure was publicized and agencies were required to use GILS but were permitted wide 

latitude in how GILS was to be applied. The result, to the extent that agencies participate, is a lack of 

consistency and predictability in search results. Similarly, the brand new FirstGov.gov Web site might 

solve some of these problems in time, but the initial implementation of the Web site suggests that 

much work remains to be done, particularly with respect to search precision, which is critical to the 

NTIS application. Even if GILS or FirstGov improve dramatically, some issues—such as detailed 

searching within a very large database, e.g. NTIS reports—will not be solved by these very large 

Government-wide systems. Thus, there will continue to be a role for NTIS. 

As the result of the National Technical Information Act of 1988, NTIS has unique statutory authority 

for joint ventures with private sector information vendors (see 15 U.S.C. 3704b(a)(1)(A)). NTIS will 

typically use this authority to find a private sector partner who is willing to underwrite the cost of 

producing an information product that an agency can no longer produce either because it lacks the 

funds for printing or the staff resources to develop it. It will then share the resulting revenue with the 

partner and provide copies to the depository libraries. A good example is the Commerce Department's 

own "U.S. Industry and Trade Outlook," the successor to the "U.S. Industrial Outlook" which had 

been produced for more than thirty years but had been discontinued. It was reintroduced in 1998 with 

a new focus on trade pursuant to a partnership between NTIS and the McGraw Hill Companies and 

was reissued in 1999 and again in 2000. 

In addition to joint ventures, NTIS makes its own Bibliographic Database available to vendors who 

add value to it, redistribute it, and pay NTIS a portion of the revenue they derive from it. Although this 

royalty may not be appropriate under the new business model to be suggested by this Panel, the role of 

NTIS in providing a central gateway to Government information for potential private sector vendors is 

a valuable role that would continue in the Internet age. 

The relationship between NTIS and the Superintendent of Documents/Depository Libraries, discussed 

later in this paper, warrants mention here. There is clearly some conflict, overlap, and duplication 

between these organizations and there is a need to rationalize their roles. This problem, however, is 

beyond the scope of this Panel's effort. Nevertheless, the unique functions that NTIS performs for the 

scientific, technical and engineering information of the Government must be continued and thus there 

is an ongoing role for NTIS. 

There appears to be—especially at this stage of Internet development—a clear need for an NTIS-like 

organization to provide overall management of the system that provides public access to agency 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-81 

reports and publications. Sometimes this organization would directly provide public access to reports 

and publications, sometimes it would simply point to where the material is available on agency Web 

sites and it would insure that all content is available and accessible. It would also provide access to 

private vendors seeking to redistribute government information. Closing NTIS before such alternative 

systems are in place and operating would deprive the public of the access to Government information 

that was available in pre-Internet days. 

SCOPE OF NTIS COLLECTION 

NTIS' predecessor organizations began operations with a scope limited primarily to scientific, 

technical and engineering information, the so called STEI gray report literature. Over the years the 

scope of the NTIS collection expanded to include social science and business information to meet the 

needs of Government agencies for the distribution of their content. 

These changes in scope were approved in a 1954 Controller General opinion later codified in the Code 

of Federal Regulations (15 CFR 1180). Scientific, Technical and Engineering Information (STEI) is 

defined as "information that bears on business and industry generally, such as economic information, 

market information and related information" that "can embrace matters beyond the restricted field of 

applied science and the mechanical arts" so long as it is "limited to information which has a direct 

relationship to business, industry or technology" (15 CFR 1180.2). 

The Panel does not believe NTIS' scope should be restricted to science and technology narrowly 

defined. However, the scope should not include general public information that does not have a direct 

relationship with business, industry or technology. 

NTIS OPERATIONS IN THE INTERNET AGE 

The roles for NTIS in the Internet age—at least until such time as improvements in standards and 

technology solve some of the current problems—would be to provide: 

1. Searchable access to the reports and publications published by the mission agencies, particularly 

to those users outside the agency's constituency, 

2. Pointers to where the report may be obtained on an agency (or other) Web site, 

3. Backup distribution of the report or publication content itself when it is no longer available from 

the originating agency or where the user requires a paper or microfiche copies and the agency only 

provides electronic access, and 

4. Permanent Accessibility. 

SEARCHABLE ACCESS 

Providing searchable access to agency reports has been the basic business of NTIS and its 

predecessors since its inception over half a century ago. NTIS performs this function by cataloging, 

indexing and abstracting the reports of the smaller agencies and other sources who do not perform 

these tasks for their own audiences and creates the searchable NTIS database. For the larger agencies 

that do this work themselves (DOD, DOE, NASA, etc.), NTIS obtains their cataloging, indexing and 

abstracting information in machine readable form, reformats it, if necessary, and adds it to the 

searchable NTIS database. NTIS now augments this with similar data obtained by NTIS' web capture 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-82 

of agency documents not forwarded to NTIS. The resulting NTIS database provides consistent 

searchable access to the NTIS collection across all of the participating agencies. 

This database should be made available on an NTIS Web site for free public search, thus providing 

free (publicly funded) access to a searching capability of the information collected by NTIS. This 

same capability would provide depository libraries and their patrons with convenient, free searchable 

access to the NTIS database. Note that this is not access to the content of NTIS reports but only to the 

database of information about the reports. 

POINTING TO DOCUMENTS ON THE WEB 

Providing access to information about the document is only the first step. NTIS must also provide the 

user with a means of obtaining the documents identified. In the past, NTIS sold the documents from its 

warehouse or produced copy on demand when requested or distributed microfiche. In the future, in 

addition to these established methods of distribution, NTIS will also point the user to the document on 

the agency's Web site where the full text of the document is available for free. Whenever there is a 

Web version of the document available, NTIS (the NTIS database) would point the user to the 

agency's Web location where the document can be obtained. In some instances a document, not 

available on an agency's site, might be available on a depository library site under the Federal 

Depository Library Program Electronic Collection. NTIS would then point to the depository library 

site. 

NTIS would develop and operate, in conjunction with the originating agencies, a Persistent Uniform 

Resource Locator (PURL) system for all of the agency documents included in the NTIS database. This 

would provide a means of maintaining the pubic accessibility of documents on agency Web sites as 

the agencies move the documents from site to site and from location to location. The NTIS database 

would provide the PURL address of the document so that users of the database would always be able 

to access the complete text of the document available for free on the Web. NTIS would operate a 

PURL server that keeps track of actual document locations on the Web updated with new location 

information provided by the agencies or by NTIS' monitoring of existing links to documents in the 

database. 

BACKUP DISTRIBUTION 

The user would normally only come to NTIS and pay for a document when it is not available for free 

on a Web site or when the user desires paper or microfiche. Some users would no doubt find paper or 

microfiche preferable to Web access and would choose to pay NTIS for the copy, paying the full 

incremental cost of distribution even though free Web access is available. 

In addition to pointing to documents on agency Web sites, an NTIS Web site would provide free 

access to the full text of selected NTIS documents in reasonable demand (recent important 

documents), which are not available on agency Web sites. To do this economically, NTIS will have to 

change the way in which it scans reports for the Web. NTIS currently scans documents in image-only 

format, which does not provide for searchable full text, limits the utility of the product offered on the 

Web and increases the costs of storage and electronic distribution. By moving to fully electronic 

documents with encoded text, NTIS can lower storage and bandwidth costs and improve product 

utility. This will however increase NTIS' scanning costs. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-83 

There will continue to be a substantial number of image-only scanned documents in the NTIS system 

for some time (representing at least the three-year backfile that has already been scanned). Over time 

we would expect more and more of the publications available from NTIS to be available in full 

electronic format, either forwarded to NTIS from other agencies or scanned in full electronic form 

(OCR) by NTIS itself. 

All of these documents in Web-ready form, whether in image-only form or in full electronic form, 

would be made available to the public without charge from an NTIS Web site if they are not available 

on the originating agency's Web site or some other publicly accessible Web site, e.g. depository library 

site. 

As a result of this approach—substantial free access to documents on agency and NTIS Web sites—

NTIS document sales income will continue to decline dramatically as more and more content is made 

available on the Web without charge. This expected decline in sales income would have to be 

considered in the new business model. Specifically, the notion of free public access to NTIS reports on 

an NTIS Web site requires the appropriation of funds for the so called public good operations of NTIS 

(see following section on "A New Business Model for NTIS"). 

PERMANENT ACCESSIBILITY 

Permanent Accessibility is a confusing term in the context of Government information. Permanent 

access to Federal Records is provided for under the Federal Records Act but agency publications and 

other important documents are not permanent Federal records (and hence not permanently accessible) 

unless individual agencies take action to make them so. Many agencies do not schedule all of their 

publications and important documents as permanent records. 

Depository libraries provide a form of permanent access but NTIS reports are not generally distributed 

to depository libraries and to the extent that depository libraries acquire them outside of the Federal 

Depository Library Program, they are not required to maintain them permanently. Whatever the 

problems with permanent accessibility may have been in pre-Internet days—and there were many—

they have been compounded with the extensive Government use of the Internet to disseminate 

information. 

Government information to which the public should have access, particularly the results of research 

work that are likely to have long term value beyond the purpose of the original research, should be 

permanently accessible to the public. Public access should not end when the agency sponsoring the 

research decides—possibly for budgetary reasons—that the report will no longer be made available on 

the agency's Web site. For example, the research reports on energy conservation and alternative energy 

sources from the early '70's are suddenly very relevant again today. Are they still up on DOE and 

Transportation Web servers? NTIS should be the fallback source to make this information available 

when it is no longer available from the generating agency. In the Internet age, where agencies mount 

some of their information on their own servers and make it available to the public free of charge, NTIS 

processing should provide pointers to the information on the agency's Web site. When the information 

is removed from the original agency's Web site NTIS should provide access to the full text of the 

information on its own Web site or by some other means. In the case of older less frequently accessed 

information, when it is no longer economically feasible to maintain it on a free Web site, the public 

requester may have to purchase a print or microfiche copy of the report made by NTIS from an archive 

copy or from a backup –non-publicly accessible—paid Web site. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-84 

NTIS MISSION 

The NTIS mission, which began (in the days when it was known as the Publications Board) with a 

focus on the cataloging, announcement and sale of copies of captured World War II technical 

documents, has changed and expanded over the years. There was some sense among the Panel 

members that in recent years the mission and scope had expanded in part to increase revenues to offset 

declining sales income and decreasing appropriations. The scope of NTIS information has expanded 

from scientific and technical reports to almost all manner of reports and publications of interest to 

business, industry and technology. 

The NTIS mission in the Internet age should have four primary components: 

• The collection and processing of Government scientific, technical, and engineering information so 

that it can be made accessible to the public including facilitating access to the information on 

Government Web sites, 

• The sale of this information to the public in print, microfiche and electronic form, 

• Related services to other Government agencies on a cost reimbursable basis, 

• Value-added information services provided by NTIS itself or by NTIS in conjunction with private 

sector information vendors. 

The first three points are consistent with the Operations Section above and relatively straightforward. 

The last point, although also consistent with the Operation Section, is potentially the most 

controversial because it is here that the potential lies for conflict and competition with the private 

sector. Value-added services would seem to be appropriate when the service is directly related to the 

dissemination of information, or a natural outgrowth of, activities that NTIS would normally perform 

in furtherance of its own mission, such as disseminating an agency's database or delivering specific 

information products to an agency's customers. However, the focus of this Panel has not been on the 

NTIS—private sector interface. This is the charge of Panel Four and has not been pursued here beyond 

these few words and the Panel cautioning that this mission point is potentially troublesome even 

though joint ventures between NTIS and private vendors are explicitly authorized by law (15 USC 

3704b(a)(1)(A). 

A "NEW" BUSINESS MODEL FOR NTIS 

The "new" business model for NTIS recommended by the Panel is a return to the earlier model with a 

mix of appropriated funds for input processing, sales income from report and publication and 

subscription sales and reimbursable funds for services provided to other agencies. 

Some of the functions performed by NTIS benefit the people of the United States and Government 

agencies as a whole. These are the functions that make the results of Government funded research and 

other NTIS publications accessible to the public. They include the functions of processing information 

into the NTIS collection and maintaining a searchable archive of Government information for public 

access. These functions, which benefit the public at large and permit public access to Government 

information, are properly supported with public funds, i.e. appropriations. 

When the DOD processes a research report of Defense funded research into its system and mounts it 

on its Web server for Defense community and public access all of the costs are taxpayer funded. The 

Department of Transportation recently received a $250,000 appropriation expressly for the purpose of 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-85 

mounting Transportation Department reports on a Web server for public access.

27 Even the 

Department of Commerce, when it mounted its two policy reports mentioned in its "Fact Sheet" 

referred to in the earlier section of this paper, used taxpayer funds to pay for the preparation, 

processing, mounting and public availability of the reports. Why should providing public access to 

reports at DOD, Transportation and Commerce be a taxpayer-funded public good while providing the 

same access to the same reports via NTIS require user charges? At present, unlike GPO, LC, DOD, 

Transportation or Commerce, NTIS is required to fund these same "public good" operations from sales 

receipts and, surprise, prices are high and there is not enough money to fund the entire operation when 

sales turn down. The consequence of this approach to funding is the inevitable development of 

shortsighted recommendations to close down the money losing operation when the real problem is 

with the business model. 

The Government has the responsibility to insure that the public has adequate access to the Government 

reports and publications collected by NTIS from originating agencies. This responsibility cannot be 

met by shifting it to mission agencies that do not have public information distribution or economic 

growth missions. Nor can it be met—and the funding saved—by transferring the responsibility to 

other central information repositories, which would require essentially the same level of funding to 

perform the same tasks. The Government's continuing responsibility to provide public access to 

Government information carries with it a responsibility to properly fund the dissemination operation. 

That is not to say that specific users should not pay the incremental cost of specific access that is not 

normally provided and that incurs extraordinary costs. They should. But in today's Internet world, 

normally free access is likely to mean Web access, which can be provided by the Government at 

negligible incremental cost for each additional user. 

The specific operations, which benefit the general public and should be funded with appropriated 

funds, are those of: 

• Collection or acquisition of reports, 

• The indexing, abstracting and cataloging of these reports, 

• The further processing of reports into the NTIS collection by scanning, microfiching and 

archiving, 

• The creation and maintenance of the NTIS database which provides searching and locating 

information for this report collection including the maintenance of a PURL system to maintain 

accessibility to reports on agency Web sites, 

• The mounting and maintaining of the searchable NTIS database on a Web site for free public 

access, 

• The mounting of the full text of the reports—to the extent they are not available on agency 

servers—on NTIS servers for free public access, and 

• The maintenance of archive files to insure permanent, but not necessarily free, public access to 

material not otherwise available. 

These functions would cost an estimated $5 million per year in ongoing operating costs and would 

permit NTIS to operate effectively independently of the vagaries of future report input or demand. 

There will also be some one-time startup costs to establish the new system. These costs are on the 

order of $1.7 million. NTIS estimates for performing these tasks are shown in Appendix B. Note that 

 

27 "DOT Gives Users Free Ride to Online Research", Government Computer News, April 3, 2000, page 13, and at 

http://www.gcn.com/vol19no7/news/1630-1.html. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-86 

periodic updating and replacement of IT hardware, possibly every five years, is not included in the 

recurring cost estimate in Appendix B. 

Note also that if the functions of NTIS were transferred to the Library of Congress as proposed by the 

Department of Commerce or to the Superintendent of Documents essentially the same "public good" 

costs would be incurred and the same appropriation for these functions would be required. 

The other functions of NTIS—the distribution of print or microfiche copies of reports or the 

distribution of subscription services—benefit only the specific individuals who make use of these 

NTIS services and incur specific, measurable, costs for each additional user. These services should be 

paid for directly by the user who benefits through a user charge that recovers the incremental cost of 

the product or service distributed. The work performed by NTIS for other agencies would be 

reimbursed on the basis of costs actually incurred. 

Under the proposed system, NTIS document sales income could be expected to fall dramatically as 

more and more content is made available on the Web. However, since document sales income would 

only be used to pay the actual costs of document distribution and not the cost of processing documents 

or maintaining the PURL system, it should be relatively simple to manage the operation without the 

kinds of deficiency problems faced in the past. Without those financial pressures, the financial 

instability would disappear, much of the aggressive entrepreneurial zeal that led to aggressive 

competition with the GPO and possible questionable partnerships would be reduced. The result would 

be a stable NTIS cooperating with the publication-originating agencies and the other centralized 

information distribution centers to provide ongoing public access to Government information on the 

most economical basis. 

DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES 

The Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) has long played an important role in providing 

public access to Government information. The system, based initially on low cost override printing by 

the Superintendent of Documents, later augmented by microfiche distribution and now moving rapidly 

to the Internet, provides broad public access at no cost to the public user. Most NTIS reports do not 

make it into the Depository Library System since they are not printed at the Government Printing 

Office (no opportunity for SOD to override the printing requisition) and there are no funds provided 

for depository copies of these materials. This has been a longstanding source of disagreement between 

SOD, NTIS and the report originating agencies. There is some limited purchasing of NTIS microfiche 

by a handful of depository libraries and a new pilot program between NTIS and GPO to provide some 

libraries with access to NTIS material on the Web in image form. However, generally the depository 

libraries do not have ready access to NTIS reports. The future availability of NTIS reports on the Web 

should solve this problem since depository libraries provide their users with Web access. Depository 

library access is one more reason for making sure that as many NTIS reports as possible are available 

without charge on the Web. Although there would be no explicit statutory authority requiring 

depository libraries to provide their patrons with Web access to the NTIS content, it seems reasonable 

to suppose that if it is available most will do so. 

In the long run, the importance of depository libraries might be expected to decline. As more and more 

Government content becomes available on the Web and as the Web becomes more accessible to more 

people, the need to go to a central depository to access Government documents is likely to decline. 

This, however, is a long way off and Congress should not take the growth of the Web and the 

increasing amount of Government content available on the Web as a signal to cut appropriations to the 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-87 

Depository Library Program. For years to come substantial numbers of important Government 

documents will not be available on the Web and many citizens will not have ready access to the Web. 

REORGANIZATION OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION ACTIVITIES 

The Superintendent of Documents was established within the Government Printing Office at a time 

when all Government publishing was done in print form and the Congress did nearly all printing for 

the entire Government. Times have changed. As Executive Branch publishing and information 

dissemination has increased dramatically the issue of separation of powers has intensified with the 

Congress doing much printing and distribution to enable Executive Branch agencies to carry out their 

missions. The advent of information technology and the Internet/Web have further exacerbated this 

issue and made it virtually impossible and impractical to effectively manage Executive Branch 

information activities from a Legislative Branch office. 

There has always been a tension between NTIS and SOD. In recent years this tension has gotten more 

intense as NTIS has sought to achieve or retain profitability in difficult financial circumstances. Both 

agencies have similar problems with congressional appropriations committees that seek to cut 

appropriations for their "public good" functions, mistakenly believing either that the costs can be 

recovered entirely from sales or that, with the Internet, there are no costs. Both agencies will have to 

streamline their operations for the Internet and make the case to Congress that their "public good" 

functions should be properly funded with appropriated funds. 

Other issues between the two agencies include differences in bibliographic control and the fact that 

most NTIS documents do not make it into the depository libraries. As long as the two agencies exist as 

separate entities the elusive goal of "one stop shopping" for government information will continue to 

be that much harder to achieve. 

Combining NTIS and SOD into a single organization is an appealing notion. It would provide the 

means to eliminate the tension and competition between the two organizations, make it easier to 

standardize cataloging and bibliographic processes, consolidate databases and searching tools, and 

begin a serious move to simpler, unified public access to Government information. There will also be 

significant opportunities for cost savings by elimination of duplication of effort. Particularly with both 

agencies moving rapidly toward Web based distribution of much of their information; the notion of a 

consolidation is attractive. However, the Panel did not have the time or resources to conduct a 

thorough study of the detailed pros and cons of a merger or of the many changes in organization, 

culture, standards and systems that would be required to make a merger successful. 

The Panel is also not in agreement on formally proposing a merger of the two organizations. The 

disadvantages are seen as primarily political. Can such a merger be made to happen when either the 

Executive or the Legislative Branch would lose a major central information distribution component to 

the other? Strong arguments can be made for having the combined agency in the Executive Branch 

because of the increasing interaction with the Executive agencies, the decreasing involvement with 

print product, and the fact that information dissemination is inherently an executive rather than a 

legislative function. However, the likelihood of the Congress approving a shift of the Superintendent 

of Documents to the Executive Branch seems so remote that a number of Panel members do not even 

want to propose it. Unfortunately this seems to be a case of good government falling to expected turf 

battles and political expediency. "Our task is to make recommendations on the NTIS business model 

and not proposals to improve overall Government information operations that have no chance of 

acceptance". 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-88 

Although the Panel could not agree on proposing a merger of NTIS and [the 

Superintendent of Documents (SOD), Government Printing Office (GPO)] it did 

discuss an even broader reorganization proposal that consolidates more of the existing 

Government information activities from various agencies. Such a consolidation 

involving not only NTIS and SOD but also related functions from [the National 

Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Library of Congress (LC), the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the General Services Administration 

(GSA)] would be far more difficult politically then just a merger of NTIS and SOD. 

Several of the Panel members felt it should not be considered, not because it lacks 

merit but because of the colossal hurdles it would face to gain acceptance and concern 

that its proposal would detract from the other recommendations of the Panel. Again, 

the Panel did not have the time or resources to conduct a thorough study of the 

detailed pros and cons of such a merger of many organizations. However, NCLIS 

itself in its further review of this matter may want to pursue this further. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. The proposal of the Department of Commerce to close NTIS and transfer its archive to the 

Library of Congress should be rejected. 

2. NTIS performs a necessary function of providing ongoing public access to government 

information—even in the Internet age—and should continue to operate as an agency of the 

Department of Commerce. 

3. The NTIS business model should include a mix of appropriated funds, sales income and 

reimbursements from other agencies for services provided. 

4. NTIS should receive appropriated funds to cover its "public good" operations and should not 

be required to recover these costs from sales income. These "public good" operations include 

the functions that make NTIS reports accessible to the public. 

5. The scope of the NTIS collection should continue to be guided by 15 CFR 1180 to include 

information that bears on business and industry. 

6. NTIS should not charge royalties for products or services provided. Charges should be based 

solely on the incremental cost of providing the product or service. 

7. NTIS should consider changing its method of scanning of report input from image-only 

scanning which has high storage and bandwidth requirements and limited utility on the 

Internet to full electronic scanning which permits full text searching across documents and has 

lower storage and bandwidth requirements. 

8. NTIS should obtain full text electronic files of reports from other agencies whenever possible 

to avoid scanning costs. 

9. NTIS should provide its users with access to reports made available by other agencies on the 

other agency's Web sites by pointing from the NTIS database to the appropriate location on 

the other agency's site. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-89 

10. NTIS should develop a Persistent Uniform Resources Locator (PURL) system and track NTIS 

reports available on other agency Web sites so that NTIS users can find reports on other 

agency sites when they are moved from site to site. 

11. Reports not available for free on agency sites should be made available without charge on an 

NTIS Web site whenever it is economically feasible to do so. Older reports not in electronic 

form would not be made available in this manner and reports that require special high cost 

handling could also be excluded. 

12. Permanent access to NTIS reports should be ensured by NTIS. The technology used to 

maintain accessibility of older less frequently used reports should be selected so as to 

minimize storage and handling costs. NTIS should be able to charge for access to these older 

reports based on the incremental costs of providing copies or access. 

13. NTIS should continue to sell report copies in paper, microfiche and electronic media formats 

as long as the demand for the format justifies continuing its use. Charges should be based on 

the incremental cost of providing the copies. 

14. The Department of Commerce should lift the hiring freeze currently on NTIS to permit the 

hiring of the information technology experts needed to implement these recommendations and 

provide NTIS the flexibility to reduce staff as necessary as, over time, the implementation of 

these recommendations results in lower staff requirements. 

15. Consideration should be given by NCLIS and the Congress to the possibility of combining the 

Superintendent of Documents with NTIS—and possibly with other information activities of 

the Federal Government—to create a more effective central information service that reduces 

duplication of effort and simplifies public access to Government information. In addition, 

NTIS should be encouraged to explore new ways of joining with SOD in cooperative 

programs that will render public access to Government information less duplicative and more 

seamless. 

PANEL 1, APPENDIX A: MEMBERS OF PANEL 1 

Peter F. Urbach, Panel 1 Chairman, Retired Publishing Industry Executive, Former Deputy Director, 

NTIS 

Kenneth Allen, Exec. VP & CEO National Newspaper Association, Chair, NTIS Advisory Panel, 

Former President, Information Industry Association, Formerly with OMB 

Stephen Arnold, President, Arnold Information Technology, Former Member, NTIS Advisory Panel 

Ernest G. Baldwin, Director, Library Programs Service, [Superintendent of Documents (SOD), 

Government Printing Office (GPO)] 

Mel Day, Retired, Former Director NTIS, Former Deputy Director [National Library of Medicine 

(NLM)] 

Mike Majcher, Retired, Former Manager, Technical Information Center, Xerox Corporation 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-90 

Steve Needle, Assistant to the Director, NTIS 

Kent Smith, Deputy Director, [National Library of Medicine (NLM)] 

Tim Sprehe, Sprehe Information Management Associates 

Kenneth Wiggin, State Librarian, Connecticut State Library 

Jay Young, Retired, Former Director, Documents Sales Service and Former Director, Library 

Programs Service [Superintendent of Documents (SOD), Government Printing Office (GPO)] 

PANEL 1, APPENDIX B: NTIS ESTIMATES FOR APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR "PUBLIC 

GOOD" FUNCTIONS28

Organization and Preservation

 ($ in thousands) 

 FY 2002 

 

 Estimated Costs

Acquisitions $540 

Input Processing 2,790 

Scanning & Storage 970 

Physical Archive 200

Total Organization and Preservation $4,500 

Mounting Full Text Reports on NTIS Web Site for Free Public Access

($ in thousands) 

 

 Year 1 Costs Recurring Costs 

Nearline Storage $80 $50 

Servers 500 

Telecomm. Hardware 50 

Telecomm. Access 50 60 * 

Programming 240 

Hardware & Software Maintenance 100 120 * 

Support Labor 200 200 

Software 500 

Total $1,720 $430 

Assumptions: 

1. Nearline storage includes average growth of 1 Terabyte per year 

 

28 These amounts have not been reviewed or approved by the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information 

Science. The estimates were provided to the panel by NTIS. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-91 

This includes storage of: (1) all currently scanned documents, (2) all new documents scanned 

and (3) back file documents scanned as ordered. 

2. Total equipment replacement every 4 or 5 years not included in recurring costs. 

3. Equipment and Telecommunications. Startup costs are additions to current infrastructure 

4. Programming calculated @ 4 FTE for 6 months (average $120k per year) 

5. Maintenance calculated @ 2 FTE for 1 year (average $96k per year) 

* Increases 20% each year with increasing file size and increasing usage 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-92 

APPENDIX 24. PANEL TWO: FINAL REPORT ON FEDERAL AGENCY NEEDS 

FOR CENTRAL INFORMATION SERVICES AND INFORMATION 

MANAGEMENT 

This and the other three panel reports were submitted to the U.S. National 

Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) as part of the assessment. 

However, the opinions are those of the panel members, not necessarily those of the 

Commission. Any panel recommendations that the Commission has accepted are 

reflected in the Commission's own recommendations in A Comprehensive Assessment 

of Public Information Resources, Volume 1. 

REPORT OF STUDY PANEL NUMBER TWO: 

INTERNAL FEDERAL AGENCY INFORMATION NEEDS 

CONTENTS29

Executive Summary 

 Recommendations 

The Charge 

Introduction 

 Federal Information Management Policies 

Defining The Federal Information Environment 

 What is Public Sector information? 

 The Information Management Process 

 Government Information Flow 

Analysis 

 Legal and policy constraints, barriers, and obstacles 

Survey of Federal Agencies 

 Impacts of these constraints and barriers 

 Information produced or collected that cannot be made available 

 Successes in the dissemination of government information 

 Likely developments in hardware and software 

Conclusions And Recommendations 

Appendix A, Members of Panel 2 

Appendix B, FOIA Exemptions 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Panel 2 (Internal Government Needs) was asked to examine individual government agency needs for 

NTIS, GPO, NARA, national library, & other central service bureau types of information services. 

This included the analysis of key issues and concerns to determine both what is "wrong," deficient, not 

working as expected, or is out-of-date and also what is being done right. 

 

29 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen24.pdf. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-93 

The electronic milieu that the Internet offers cannot be viewed as merely an extension of the paperoriented world. Interconnectivity among various communities has led to awareness that many previous 

concerns perceived to be local are really overarching concerns. Copyright, access control, and privacy 

concerns are policy considerations common to many communities. The functions of organizing, 

announcing, disseminating, and archiving information are basic information management functions 

and are not unique to any one community. 

In the United States all government organizations—be they federal, state, or local—create and use 

information to fulfill their roles in serving citizens. A majority of government information is generated 

to accomplish the work of government agencies. Some is originally intended for public consumption, 

some is anticipated to be available for use by other communities and some is developed for strictly 

communication internal to the process. The purpose of much of the Federal Government information 

is primarily to accomplish the mission of the organization. It is also a major product—both 

intermediate and final—of that function. Concomitant with the issue of access to information are the 

issues of optimizing its usefulness, ensuring its integrity, and guaranteeing its retention and archiving. 

There continues to be a need for NTIS, GPO, NARA, national library, & other central service bureau 

types of information services. The need, however, goes far beyond these organizations. There is a need 

to extend to all government information the information content management disciplines under which 

these organizations operate. 

For the executive branch of the Federal government, OMB Circular No. A-130 (61 FR 6428, February 

20, 1996) provides uniform government-wide information resources management policies. The 

circular does not adequately address information sharing among federal organizations. Provision 

should be made under the appropriate sections of the circular to promulgate the sharing of information 

among government organizations. A comprehensive look is needed at how to maximize access to 

government information—both paper and electronic, publication and record of government activity—

and a plan for achieving meaningful access needs development. If the assessment starts by addressing 

the issue of information sharing among federal organizations it follows that it will also address the 

issue of greater public access. 

Access to government information is only one aspect of the challenge of exploiting the information 

content resource. Two critically important digital challenges must also be addressed: continuous, longterm access to this digital government information accessible agency web sites, and its preservation. 

Recommendations 

1. Institutionalize interagency cooperative efforts for information sharing. 

2. Clarify "life-cycle planning" in OMB Circular A- 130. 

3. In providing the public the opportunity to submit information by electronic means, as required by 

the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), agencies should be expected to render the 

required data elements in XML format on the Internet in order to facilitate interoperability and 

ease of use. 

4. An interagency committee should be established to develop an information taxonomy to be 

established federal government-wide. 

5. Agencies should be required, when seeking NARA's approval to dispose of records, to specify the 

metadata by which each of their records series will be classified. 

6. A comprehensive analysis should be conducted regarding what currently non-digital government 

information should be converted to digital and the cost to do so. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-94 

7. A comprehensive analysis should be conducted regarding what need to be done to assure 

permanent public access to digital publications produced by Federal agencies. 

8. An interagency committee should be established to identify and recommend how federal 

identifiers can be used to assist agencies and the public in obtaining information residing in 

different agencies. 

9. A comprehensive analysis should be conducted and recommendations made on the most efficient 

ways to translate and coordinate the many state and local government—assigned unique 

identification numbers used to manage permitting, licensing, and compliance records with the 

federal unique identifiers. 

10. An information technology research program should be established to address the Federal 

government's most critical requirements for long-term information content needs. These include: 

security (including information integrity and authenticity) and privacy; data integration; and 

scalable information infrastructure to improve the capability and reliability of the government's 

information infrastructure. 

11. OSTP step forward to assume the role it has in statute to provide oversight in the effective 

management of STI—perhaps even form a COSATI like group which has membership from both 

the public and private sectors.

THE CHARGE

Panel 2 (Internal Government Needs) was asked to examine individual government agency needs for 

NTIS, GPO, NARA, national library, & other central service bureau types of information services. 

This included the analysis of key issues and concerns to determine both what is "wrong," deficient, not 

working as expected, or is out-of-date and also what is being done right. 

INTRODUCTION 

As far as we know the Sumerians invented writing 5000 years ago. Sumerian temple bureaucrats 

recorded economic transactions into clay tablets. Thus began the first "information explosion." It's not 

known if writing was invented earlier by some other community because there is no record of it—a 

lesson learned regarding the importance of preservation. It is clear that the business of the Sumerian 

society was of such great importance that it required its recording on a transportable media. While 

some technological changes occurred over the next 4500 years, such as the invention of paper by the 

Chinese, the need to hand inscribe government, business, scientific and religious information did not 

change. Nor did the need to transport this information to other locales. Gutenberg's press changed all 

that. It not only made production easier leading to a second "information explosion" but, more 

importantly, it led to significant social change. Recorded information became part of the general 

public leading to monumental changes in governmental and religious institutions. 

Today, 550 years after the introduction of Gutenberg's press, we are beginning a third "information 

explosion." This upheaval, however, includes a fundamental change in recorded communication. The 

electronic milieu that the Internet offers cannot be viewed as merely an extension of the paper-oriented 

world. The so-called "wired world" can eliminate narrow "stovepiped communities" whether these 

communities are defined by policy considerations, organizational alignment, or business functions. 

Interconnectivity among various communities has led to awareness that many previous concerns 

perceived to be local are really overarching concerns. Copyright, access control, and privacy concerns 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-95 

are policy considerations common to many communities. The functions of organizing, announcing, 

disseminating, and archiving information are basic information management functions and are not 

unique to any one community. The unique challenge, however, is the need to address the challenge of 

information content management of both digital and non-digital information. While many believe that 

"everything is on the Web" the fact is that most information is not on the web. What is on the web 

typically references information yet to be digitized, or information that has been digitized in the past 

few years. In most cases large documents do not exist "on the Web" nor do a significant number of 

digitized documents that were originally placed there but then, because of some local reason, were 

removed and thus became unavailable. 

In the United States all government organizations—be they federal, state, or local—create and use 

information to fulfill their roles in serving citizens. In the European Green Paper on Public Sector 

Information in the Information Society the issue is stated the "Public sector information plays a 

fundamental role in the proper functioning of the internal market and the free circulation of goods, 

services and people. Without user-friendly and readily available administrative, legislative, financial 

or other public information, economic actors cannot make fully informed decisions."30

 

The Group of Eight Okinawa Charter on Global Information Society and Global Service Trust Fund 

Project states "The essence of the IT-driven economic and social transformation is its power to help 

individuals and societies to use knowledge and ideas. Our vision of an information society is one that 

better enables people to fulfill their potential and realize their aspirations."31 But much government 

information, while publicly available, is created and used by government organizations themselves. 

Just as informed citizens and commercial businesses rely on access to information to increase their 

knowledge and improve their performance so do government organizations. Democratic governments 

moderate this need with the requirement to be open to the people and accountable to them, as well as 

to protect the privacy of individuals, to provide for the economic and defense security of the state, and 

to assure fairness and equity. 

Federal Information Management Policies. 44 USC 3510 generically addresses the topic of 

"Cooperation of agencies in making information available." It is, however, only one of many laws, 

policies, and procedures impacting the use and distribution of federal information. For example, 15 

USC 3701, the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, requires the dissemination of 

"... information on federally owned or originated products. Processes, and services having potential 

application to State and local governments and to private industry." The statute directs the use of the 

National Technical Information Service (NTIS) as a central clearinghouse. The American Technology 

Preeminence Act of 1991, Public Law 102-245, February 14, 1992, 106 Stat. 20, section 304, requires 

federal agencies to provide their scientific, technical and engineering technical reports to NTIS. 

Chapters 17 and 19 of Title 44 reference the cooperative nature of the Federal Depository Library 

Program (FDLP), Cataloging and Indexing, Sales, and reimbursable services programs shepherded by 

GPO. Each represents a prime example of Federal policies that facilitate the dissemination of 

Government information through agency cooperation. The FDLP allows for the dissemination of 

agency information products to libraries around the country through the cooperation of GPO and the 

publishing agencies. The records are made available for use by others either through agency 

notification of their publishing activities to GPO which allows for the creation of authoritative catalog 

records, or through cooperative cataloging agreements by the agencies and GPO, a Catalog of U.S. 

 

30 European Commission, Public Sector Information: A Key Resource For Europe, Green Paper On Public Sector 

Information In The Information Society (Com(98)585final, Adopted on 20 January 1999); 

http://europa.eu.int/ispo/docs/policy/docs/com(98)585/gp-intro.html.

31 Group of Eight, Okinawa Charter on Global Information Society, Asahi Shimbun, July 22, 2000. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-96 

Government Publications. Not included, however, are many documents that may not enter normal 

channels or systems of publication. 

For the executive branch of the Federal government, OMB Circular No. A-130 (61 FR 6428, February 

20, 1996) provides uniform government-wide information resources management policies as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.32 The 

circular recognizes as a basic consideration and assumption that "Government information is a 

valuable national resource. It provides the public with knowledge of the government, society, and 

economy—past, present, and future. It is a means to ensure the accountability of government, to 

manage the government's operations, to maintain the healthy performance of the economy, and is itself 

a commodity in the marketplace."33 Additionally, in many Federal agencies there are specific statutes 

governing the dissemination of information that take precedence over the generalized language found 

in the PRA Act or in OMB Circulars. This is certainly the case with respect to the management of 

scientific and technical information. 

DEFINING THE FEDERAL INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT. 

What is Public Sector information? The definition of information itself is, at best, ambiguous. The 

purpose of much of the Federal Government information is primarily to accomplish the mission of the 

organization. It is also a major product—both intermediate and final—of that function. Moreover, 

demand for most types of government information is normally limited to narrowly defined 

communities. Information can be in many forms—such as bibliographic, textual, statistical data, 

factual and numeric data, and images. 

Government information may be categorized in several ways. However categorized it is essential to 

recognize the reason for its creation and the audience for which it was initially intended. Categories 

may include: 

 

• Consumer information. Information prepared with the individual citizen or specific group of 

citizens as the intended audience. Normally requires no further processing to be used by a member 

of the general public. Included in this type of information are publications addressing health, 

agricultural, education, and consumer safety issues and services such as government crop and 

weather bulletins and self-help programs. 

• Citizen Information. Information that informs citizens about the operations of their government. 

Information of this type may have been specially prepared to meet the needs of the specific 

government organization but is available for all citizens (e.g., the Congressional Record, 

environmental assessment documents) or it may have been prepared specifically to inform citizens 

(e.g., press releases). 

• Administrative (or Operating) Information. Information of this type is used to meet the needs of 

the specific government organization including that information required for informed decision 

making and meeting operational needs such as payroll. Also included are data, documents, indices 

and/or directories to data or documents that either result from research and data gathering 

conducted by or for the Federal Government or are collected or created by or for Federal agencies 

as part of the business and economics knowledge base for use in Federal policy making and 

 

32 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Management of Federal Information Resources, OMB Circular A-130, 

Transmittal Memorandum #3, dated February 8,1996 [The latest revision to OMB Circular A-130, Transmittal Memorandum 

#4, was issued November 30, 2000, after this report was submitted to the Commission. The revised circular is available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a130/a130trans4.html.] 33 ibid., Paragraph 7.b 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-97 

regulation and for business planning by commercial firms. With certain exceptions, information of 

this type is normally not prepared with release to the general public in mind 

• Scientific and Technical Information (STI). Federal STI is data, documents, indices or directories 

to data or documents that either result from research and development conducted by or for the 

Federal Government or are collected or created by or for Federal agencies as part of the 

knowledge base for scientific disciplines, technical specialties, and science and technology policy 

making. Since a large majority of Federal Research and Development is done in the private sector 

Federal STI may be more readily available to federal contractors than it is to other government 

organizations.34

 

The Information Management Process. The functions of organizing, announcing, accessing, 

disseminating, and preserving information are basic information content management functions. 

Concomitant with the issue of access to information are the issues of optimizing its usefulness, 

ensuring its integrity, and guaranteeing its retention and archiving. At present there are no automated 

tools that perform these functions in a uniform, reliable, consistent manner. While the Internet, and its 

tools like the World Wide Web, search engines and categorization aides like those found in Yahoo, 

have brought new opportunities—and challenges—the basic information management functions still 

require human physical and intellectual efforts. 

Organizing. Information has only potential power. Quantity is not quality, stuff is not information, and 

information is not power, it's only potential power. The power of information exists only when it can 

be put into the mind of a person (or a machine) so that it can be used. Given the rapidly expanding 

amount of information that is on the Internet, finding information online is as difficult as finding a 

book in the British Library without a card catalog. 

Organizing information so those requiring it can find it and utilize it has been a work in progress for 

centuries. With the beginning of the University movement in the 13th century librarians began to 

organize information in ways meaningful to a diverse group of individuals. But most of their work was 

directed to their local community and also suffered in the conflicts between religion, monarchies, and 

science. In the 18th century the value of knowledge diffusion again became important to those in 

power. Since then effective standards for bibliographic information have progressively been adopted 

and improved. Cataloging standards, abstracting and indexing elements, terminology and thesauri, 

records management, and archiving have been adopted. 

Work to develop similar methods and techniques for digital information are in their seminal stages. 

Communities that have "grown up" with digital data rather than textual information are more 

advanced. For example, the international community versed in Geographic Information Systems has 

developed only in the past few decades. This community gained an early and abiding interest in 

metadata, so that the sharing of metadata among geospatial projects and software vendors is now well 

standardized. 

The digital data communities, while more advanced in managing digital content than the digital text 

and multi-media communities, still share a major challenge—information overload. Information 

overload is counterproductive and may lead to less effectiveness and efficiency. 

Announcing. Regardless of how well organized content is if those who may need it don't know of its 

existence it isn't information, it's just a potential resource. The need to provide tools for finding 

organized relevant information from multiple sources led to a significant sector of the information 

 

34 Molholm, Kurt N., "The Issue of Access to Federal Information," Proceedings of the Federal Pre-White House Conference 

on Library and Information Services, November 26-7, 1990," Federal Library and Information Center Committee, 1991. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-98 

industry called secondary publishing. Organizations, both public and private, in this sector create 

reference tools such as bibliographic publications with citations from journals, books, monographs, 

conference proceedings, databases or other sources containing full text or numeric data. These 

organizations normally support specific communities of interest by supplying a comprehensive 

collection of references of interest to the target community. 

Accessing. While it is important to know about the existence of needed content it is normally more 

important to obtain the content itself. This, perhaps, is one of the biggest problems facing users and 

information managers alike. For example, the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) has 

online citations to the nearly two million technical reports in its collection. However, only full text 

documents brought into the collection since 1994 and those converted based on demand are in digital 

form. The cost to digitize the full collection is prohibitive. Thus, DTIC still annually supplies tens of 

thousands of printed documents to its customers. It is interesting to note that, even where documents 

are in electronic form, a significant demand still exists for them to be supplied as printed documents. 

The average size of a document in DTIC's collection is 110 pages. It takes no research to know that 

most people prefer NOT to read a large document online, nor do many people have the capability to 

download and print large documents locally. Other organizations, such as NTIS, experience is similar. 

Another consideration in discussing access is how digital documents are stored and delivered. The 

way that users download and import documents from the web varies depending on the browser being 

used and the applications on the user(s) system. For example, Portable Document Format (PDF), is a 

file type created to allow formatted documents to be widely distributed regardless of whether specific 

fonts or postscript files are available to the viewer's system. PDF files can embed specialized fonts and 

images within the document as they are distributed. This ensures the document remains exactly as 

formatted by its authors. 

The PDF format was originally created by Adobe Systems. This company freely distributes its Adobe 

Acrobat Reader software to anyone who wishes to view PDF files. These files are essentially images 

of the documents and thus, full text searching cannot be used. There are, of course, other approaches 

that will allow full-text searching of a document. These, however, may be considerably more 

expensive to produce, can more easily be altered, and do not ensure the document remains exactly as 

formatted (which may or may not be important). 

Disseminating. The proposed revision to OMB Circular A- 130, (Transmittal Memorandum No. 4) 

states that the term "dissemination" means the government initiated distribution of information to the 

public. Not considered dissemination within the meaning of this Circular is distribution limited to 

government employees or agency contractors or grantees, intra- or inter-agency use or sharing of 

government information, and responses to requests for agency records under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) or Privacy Act. As currently defined in OMB Circular A- 130 access 

is an "on-demand" or "pull" function while disseminating is a "push" function; normally a subscription 

type of service based on individual customer needs. Both, however, involve sending information to 

others. The circular points out that access is a passive function for Federal agencies and differs from 

dissemination. Access is the government's responsibility, " ... when the public comes to the 

government and asks for information the government has and the public is entitled to..." 

Dissemination, however, is when, "... the government provides the public with information without the 

public having to come and ask for it." These definitions can apply just as well to government 

organizations. Using DTIC again as an example, DTIC provides its customers bibliographies based on 

individual user profiles. These can be in either paper or e-mail form. A similar service provides full 

text documents. What DTIC does is not unique. Most information management organizations provide 

similar services. The profile-driven dissemination approach addresses the challenge of "information 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-99 

overload" to specific users or organizing by allowing users to tailor information services to meet their 

specific needs. 

Distinguishing dissemination from access, however, begins to (if not entirely) break down with the 

Internet/Web. The ability of individuals to address some of their "information overload" through 

Portal technology is just beginning. Based on personal preferences portals allow individuals to tailor 

their own web page to establish such things as calendars, automatic access to favorite sites, and 

notification of updates to information sources, which meet their specific needs. Portals can also be 

established for the organization or enterprise as a whole. These allow organizations to combine 

internal business process information and appropriate content found on the Internet as a whole. They 

can also be used to help those both internal and external users find information located throughout the 

enterprise. The recently announced FirstGov portal is an example. This web site provides a single 

online information portal that connects people with U.S. Government information and. FirstGov 

allows users to search all 27 million Federal agency web pages at one time. The Web Site provides 

access to the home pages of major agencies and entities in all three branches of government, a section 

that provides topics of current interest to web users (e.g., a direct link to the a direct link to the 

Weather Service during hurricane season, to NASA during a shuttle launch, or to IRS during tax 

season), and key sites that access State and local government web pages. 

Preserving. We advance knowledge by building upon what has gone before. Sir Isaac Newton 

attributed his discoveries to the work done by his predecessors, stating "If I have seen farther than 

others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants." Indeed, on a grander scale, we call the 

period before recorded (and somewhat preserved) information artifacts Prehistoric. Information is 

critical to scientists and engineers, to historians, to decision makers, to students, in fact nearly to 

everyone. Accordingly, it must be preserved. The advent of the digital world, however, is bringing 

new challenges. In the past much of the challenge of preservation was left to specialists such as 

records managers and archivists to address long-term needs and clerical personnel to handle the shortterm needs of the organization and implement the records management policies of the specialists. In 

the digital world quite often an original document may never get into a preservation system. It may be 

created to serve the purpose of the author(s), stored and transmitted by a system managed by an 

information technologist and completely bypass the critical content preservation function. Information 

that may be of critical importance to others may be irretrievably lost as well as the record of its 

existence. It is important to recognize, however, that preservation does not ensure access while access, 

on the other hand, does encompass preservation. So when we talk about archival policies and practices 

we should, in this electronic era, couch things in terms of permanent access to information 

Government Information Flow. A majority of government information is generated to accomplish 

the work of government agencies. Some is originally intended for public consumption, some is 

anticipated to be available for use by other communities and some is developed for strictly 

communication internal to the process. This does not necessarily mean that it may not be made 

available to others. It means that sharing with others is generally not considered. Information such as 

scientific and technical information and statistical data are recognized as having value to others and 

are part of an organized information content process designed to inform others and then supply the 

content if requested. Participants in this process include central facilities such as the Department of 

Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) and the National Technical 

Information Service (NTIS). In this "system," for example, OSTI serves the mission of the Department 

of Energy with NTIS serving the general public. 

In order for the information to flow it must be indexed to properly retrieve it. NTIS, DTIC and the 

DOE (formerly the Atomic Energy Commission) have been in the STI business for over 50 years. 

NTIS, for example, now has over 3.0M titles in their inventory of government technical reports. Over 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-100 

2.0M of these reports are cataloged and indexed as part of the NTIS Database. NTIS has, over the 

years, been the primary access point and a clearinghouse for the government's STI. As the Internet has 

evolved, agencies have put their documents up on the web and in some cases bypassed NTIS. 

However, much of this information remains uncataloged and unindexed with the exception of such 

agencies as DTIC, DOE-OSTI, NASA and some others. NTIS maintains the master database for all 

these agencies and provides a one-stop-shop. They also crawl agency web sites, on a regular basis, and 

download reports that are not in their inventory. NTIS indexes and catalogs each report and adds it to 

their database. Annually, NTIS acquires between 40-50,000 new reports. Since 1997, NTIS has been 

scanning all reports received in paper format as well as receiving reports in digital form that have 

either been "born digital" or scanned by organizations such as DTIC and OSTI. NTIS currently has 

over 435,000 reports available in digital form. NTIS clearly continues to demonstrate that the concept 

of a clearinghouse for federal scientific and technical information remains valid. 

There are similar coordinating efforts, either through committees or through centralized, coordinated 

organizations that serve other communities of interest such as the statistical community. OMB 

Circular A-1635 describes the responsibilities of Federal agencies with respect to coordination of those 

Federal surveying, mapping, and related spatial data activities. (Spatial data are geographically 

referenced features that are described by geographic positions and attributes in an analog and/or 

computer-readable (digital) form. 

 

35 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Coordination of Surveying, Mapping, and Related Spacial Data Activities, OMB 

Circular A-16, (Revised), October 19, 1990 (Replaced/Rescinded OMB Circular A-16 dated May 6, 1967). 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-101 

A major objective of this Circular is the development of a national digital spatial information resource, 

with the involvement of Federal, State, and local governments, and the private sector. This national 

information resource, linked by criteria and standards, enables sharing and efficient transfer of spatial 

data between producers and users. In the absence of coordinated community interest other government 

information and data may either be handled in the records management program of the individual 

agencies—including the disposition to a Federal Records Center, to GPO's Federal Depository Library 

Program (or both)—or, as be the case for many electronic records, lost at some point in time. The 

following diagram shows that information, originated from many sources, may follow several paths. 

ANALYSIS 

1. What are the legal and policy constraints, barriers, and obstacles to the active 

intergovernmental dissemination and sharing of government information content? For 

example, what federal policies exist that require sharing of government information, both 

publicly available and information not publicly available, with other government 

organizations? 

The main body of the OMB Circular A-130 is principally concerned with information management 

and "(t)he free flow of information between the government and the public..."36 and not information 

technology (IT). It correctly recognizes that exploitation of the value of information is not an 

information technology issue—it's an information management issue. The circular points out that IT is 

not an end in itself.37 It is one set of resources that can improve the effectiveness and efficiency of 

Federal program delivery. None of the Circular's Basic Considerations and Assumptions, however, 

discuss interagency sharing of information. In fact, as earlier stated, Intra-agency or interagency use of 

sharing of government information is specifically excluded from the definition of the term 

dissemination in the circular. Sharing of information systems, not information content, is a primary 

policy requirement. Information content sharing is not completely forgotten. Consideration and 

Assumption 7k does state "The open and efficient exchange of scientific and technical government 

information, subject to applicable national security controls and the proprietary rights of others, fosters 

excellence in scientific research and effective use of Federal research and development funds." 38 Also 

one of A-130's policies (8a(d)) is for agencies to "Seek to satisfy new information needs through 

interagency or intergovernmental sharing of information, or through commercial sources, where 

appropriate, before creating or collecting new information (emphasis added)."39 By and large, 

however, there are few federal policies that establish direction, procedures, or enforcement of 

information sharing among agencies. There are provisions for records management and retention but 

not for access and dissemination to operating agencies. 

OMB Circular A-13040 calls for the integrated life-cycle planning for information and outlines the 

objectives for that planning process. The requirement, however, fails to do much to stress the 

importance of information management. Instead the circular continues to heighten the problem of 

dealing with an intangible resource such as "information" when management focus for at least four 

decades has thought of "information resources" as hardware and software. The Circular's policy 

framework emphasizes both content and technology under the information management heading; 

 

36 OMB Circular A-130., Paragraph 7.c 37 OMB Circular A-130., Paragraph 7.l 

38 OMB Circular A-130., Paragraph 7.k 

39 OMB Circular A-130., Paragraph 8.a.1(d) 

40 OMB Circular A-130., Paragraph 8.a.1
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-102 

however, in the planning context, the bias is toward information systems, rather than use of the 

information prevails. 

Safeguarding Sensitive, Proprietary and Nonpublic Information. Information sharing among 

federal agencies does not mean that all federal information is available to the general public. There are 

many statutes that restrict Federal employees from sharing information not released to the public. 

Among these are: 

The Procurement Integrity Act (41 U.S.C. 423) restricts the release of source selection and contractor 

bid and proposal information. 

The Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905) makes it a crime to improperly release contractor trade secrets 

and other confidential information outside the Government. 

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) restricts release of personal information about individuals, such as 

for private marketing purposes. 

Improper release of data could also result in claims from the owner for breach of contract or loss of 

business. 

Additionally the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) As Amended By Public Law No. 

104-231, 110 Stat. 3048, includes several exemptions relating to release of federal information to the 

public (See Appendix B). 

Most of the interagency efforts to share information among federal agencies have been the result of 

efforts within communities of interest and not because they have been directed as part of a federal 

information policy. Obviously, government interfaces with the general public, e.g. NTIS, GPO's 

Superintendent of Documents, are also available to federal agencies. These services, however, may not 

fulfill the information needs of specific communities. In many cases federal agencies have no central 

information content management organization and thus no mechanism to promote sharing. 

In 1962 Dr. Jerome Wiesner, Science Advisor to the President appointed a special task force41 to 

examine Federal STI programs. The task force made two major organizational recommendations to 

improve the flow of STI within the Federal Government. One was a central authority to define the 

objectives of government information programs; to plan, develop, and guide organization of 

government information activities; and to develop criteria (including financial) for effective operation 

of government-wide information system. The second recommendation was that each research and 

development agency of the Federal Government should set up an office exercising agency-wide 

direction and control of information activities." 

The then Office of Science and Technology (now the Office of Science and Technology Policy 

(OSTP)), an agency by law designated to coordinate and provide oversight in the effective 

management and dissemination of STI, assigned a fulltime staff member to information systems and 

an interagency committee, the Committee on Scientific and Technical Information (COSATI) was 

established in 1963. The recommendation that each R&D agency establish an organization responsible 

for management of the Department's STI Program was largely implemented. 

 

41 J. H. Crawford, G. Abdian, W. Fazar, S. Passman, R.B. Stegmaier, Jr. and J. Stern, Scientific and Technical 

Communication in the Government. Task Force Report to the President's Special Assistant for Science and Technology. AD299-545, April 1962. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-103 

The COSATI was created to develop among the Executive Agencies a coordinated but decentralized 

STI system for scientists, engineers and other technical professions. Additionally, it sought to foster an 

improved national system for handling STI and it was made clear that if the blueprint didn't include 

the private sector there was little chance of an orderly growth of a national information system. 

COSATI became the national focal point for coordinating the development of a national network of 

independently operating but, at the same time, cooperating STI systems. The key factor responsible for 

the success of COSATI was its organizational placement in the Executive Office of the President—

essentially above the level of the Federal agencies themselves.42 The central authority was not 

intended to be a central operating activity. The intent was to establish a coordinated, consistent 

framework for obtaining STI. This included the establishment of a standard information categorization 

system known as the COSATI standard—the code for the cataloging of technical information. This 

"standard" is still used by DTIC, NTIS and some commercial organizations. However, the central 

authority has never been established. 

Indeed a dramatic decline began from the high level interest in management and transfer of scientific 

and technical information that was the hallmark of the 1960's science policy. The result was, by the 

mid-1970s, the disestablishment of the COSATI and the virtual elimination of OSTP staff associated 

with STI systems. Beginning about this time and continuing through the mid-1980s leaders of the STI 

facilities in major R&D agencies met regularly but informally to discuss and, if possible, take action to 

address problems associated with the cooperative management and transfer of federal STI. These 

meetings led to the formal establishment of CENDI in 1985. CENDI was originally the Commerce, 

Energy, NASA, Defense, Information group, a voluntary group comprised of the heads of 

Commerce's National Technical Information Service, Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical 

Information Program, NASA's Scientific and Technical Information (STI) Program, and Defense's 

Defense Technical Information Center. 

The four founding organizations from some of the largest federal agencies involved in research and 

development were principally involved in managing STI recorded in technical reports. This type of 

report is not formally published but records results of federal R&D done either in house or through 

contracts or grants. Such reports may or may not be made publicly available since they may contain 

information falling within the exemptions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Energy, 

NASA, and Defense organizations traditionally shared their collections with each other and provided 

publicly available information to NTIS for acquisition by the general public. In 1986 the National 

Library of Medicine (NLM) joined CENDI. NLM, while not handling technical reports, had many of 

the same information management challenges. Thus, with these five organizations meeting regularly 

and sponsoring working groups and standing committees, the federal agencies responsible for over 

90% of federal R&D had established a voluntary interagency information and information 

management sharing effort to fill the void left with the disestablishment of COSATI. CENDI now has 

ten members from nine different departments or agencies. The CENDI Secretariat is paid through 

member contributions. 

Conversely, the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) is an interagency committee, organized 

under OMB Circular A-16. Organized in 1990, the FGDC promotes the coordinated use, sharing, and 

dissemination of geospatial data on a national basis. The FGDC is composed of representatives from 

seventeen Cabinet level and independent federal agencies. The Steering Committee sets high-level 

strategic direction for the FGDC as a whole. The Coordination Group advises on the day-to day 

business of the FGDC. The FGDC Secretariat staff provides staff support for FGDC committees. For 

example, the Federal Geographic Data Committee coordinates the development of the National Spatial 

 

42 Smith, Kent, Federal Information Policy--Putting It All Together, Miles Conrad Lecture, National Federation of 

Abstracting and Information Services, February 24, 1998. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-104 

Data Infrastructure (NSDI). The NSDI encompasses policies, standards, and procedures for 

organizations to cooperatively produce and share geographic data. The federal agencies that make up 

the FGDC are developing the NSDI in cooperation with organizations from state, local and tribal 

governments, the academic community, and the private sector. 

The CENDI and FGDC efforts are examples of what can be done to share information among 

agencies. There are three keys to these efforts. One key is agency recognition that their information 

may have a wider value beyond its original use. A second key is the existence of either a central 

agency information management organization or an organization that acts as one. A third key is some 

level of funding. 

An example of an attempt to instill some discipline in the federal government so that information, or 

information sources, can be discovered and accessed is GILS. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3511) directed the establishment of the Government Information Locator Service (GILS) to 

help the public and federal, state, and local government agencies locate and access information 

throughout the Federal Government. In concept GILS could also assist agencies in complying with 

aspects of the Federal Records Act (44 U.S.C. 3301) and the Freedom of Information Act as amended 

in 1996 (5 U.S.C. 552). GILS, however, has been less successful than anticipated. Federal components 

that had significant information management organizations or interest (e.g. GPO, EPA, NTIS, DoD) 

successfully implemented GILS. GPO, with its GPO Access and NTIS with its FedWorld, 

implemented a GILS system that can serve all federal agencies and the public at large. As well 

intentioned as these efforts are they are at the mercy of the various federal agencies implementing 

GILS. Many federal agencies, having higher spending priorities than GILS, did not implement GILS 

and OMB failed to enforce the requirement. OMB Bulletin 95-1, "Establishment of Government 

Information Locator Service," which guided the initial startup of GILS, expired. In lieu thereof OMB 

Bulletin No. 98-03, November 18, 1997 requires agencies to describe GILS progress in their annual 

reporting under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. It is an irony that GILS has been far more 

successfully implemented by many states and internationally through the Global Information Locator 

Service—the international byproduct of the U.S. GILS—than in the U.S. Federal Government. 

In addition to legal and policy constraints, barriers, and obstacles, there are significant technical, 

budgetary, and organizational challenges to the active intergovernmental dissemination and sharing of 

government information content. The President's Information Technology Advisory Committee 

(PITAC) reported in 1999 [Information Technology Research: Investing in Our Future] that such 

technical challenges developing significant improvements in systems and methods for accessing 

data—including high performance data storage and tools to locate and present information, and 

developing reliable, secure networks and software to deliver and protect critical data needed to be 

addressed. The PITAC charged its Panel on Transforming Government to identify key technical 

challenges and develop a long-range technology-based strategy to harness the power of advanced 

information systems to make government's stores of information and vital services easily accessible to 

and usable by all U.S. citizens. 

While the Panel's findings, in its report, Transforming Access to Government through Information 

Technology,

43 address the issues from the perspective of public access, they are translatable into 

equivalent concerns for active intergovernmental dissemination and sharing of government 

 

43 U.S. Executive Office of the President, National Coordination Office for Information Technology Research and 

Development, Transforming Access to Government Information Through Information Technology, report of the President's 

Information Technology Advisory Committee, Panel on Transforming Government, Washington, DC: National Coordination 

Office for Information Technology Research and Development, August 31, 2000; available at 

http://www.itrd.gov/ac/transform13x.pdf. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-105 

information content. In terms of finding, sharing, and using government information resident in an 

agency, other government agencies are often no better situated than the public. 

The Panel found that: 

Major technological barriers prevent citizens from easily accessing government 

information resources... Today government information is often unavailable, 

inadequate, out of date, and needlessly complicated. 

The Federal CIO Council's...mandates require them to focus primarily on near-term 

operational issues and acquisitions. Budget planning processes make it difficult to 

carry out effective cross-agency coordination and execution and the long-term 

research efforts that many of the goals require. 44

The Panel notes that, while "the CIO Council has established mechanisms for sharing results and 

lessons, the process of creating standardized processes and information representations, eventually 

leading to cross-agency transactions and information federation and integration, is much harder and 

requires cross-agency budget planning and execution. Creating cross-agency budgets requires 

substantial work and, therefore, is used only for large initiatives. Depending on cross-agency plans is 

very risky because of the uncertainty that all participants will receive adequate funding. ..." 

In addition, the Panel notes that: 

[S]tovepiping of both congressional and executive review processes causes 

stovepiping of plans and programs. The Government Performance Results Act 

(GPRA), for example, while valuable in requiring agencies to set goals against which 

they can be held accountable, tends to hinder agency interdependencies in plans and 

programs because no agency will create a GPRA objective that depends on budgeting 

and operational success in another agency.45

A Survey of Federal Agencies 

A selected number of Federal Agencies were surveyed during the study to ascertain:46

• The level of information dissemination in electronic form; use of web sites and the management of 

information placed on the web; 

• the policies that have been issued relative to information dissemination, particularly in electronic 

form; 

• whether these policies resulted from statutory, Executive Office, or Departmental requirements; or 

Agency or Bureau level program initiatives; 

• if a comprehensive listing of publicly available electronic information products existed; and 

• whether there were suggestions/recommendations for NCLIS' consideration in preparing the 

report. 

A total of 38 agencies were contacted. Of these, only 11 responded. Each of the selected agencies were 

asked to respond to six questions, as follows: 

 

44 Ibid. 

45 Ibid. 

46 The results of the agency survey are available in Appendix 27 and at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen27.pdf. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-106 

1. Does your department/agency have published policies on government information dissemination 

to the public, and/or programs which implement those policies, especially for information 

products being made available on agency web sites in electronic formats and mediums? Short of a 

formal policy, is there a letter or other communication from a senior official that mandates the 

discontinuance of publishing an information product in paper form, in favor of utilizing electronic 

mediums and formats? 

2. Have your individual bureau-level units established their own policies and/or implementing 

programs? If so what are they? 

3. Does your department/agency have guidelines for adding new, changing existing, or deleting "old" 

information available to the public from its web sites? Does this guidance include instructions on 

when to take information down, make a backup copy for permanent retention and availability, and 

archive an official record copy? 

4. Is there a reasonably comprehensive and authoritative listing of the department/agency's electronic 

public information products that is periodically updated? 

5. Which of your major information products/resources and/or most important information 

dissemination policies, are mandated by Congress or federal statute? Which ones were put in place 

by the President, your department/agency head, or a senior program official? 

6. Do you have any recommendations for strengthening existing laws, policies, programs, and 

practices relevant to the dissemination of, and access to, your agency's publicly available 

information? If so, what are they? 

Analysis of survey responses. Summaries of each of the individual agency responses are included in 

Appendix 27. Although the survey specifically addressed public access increased agency use of the 

Internet also helps in the potential for interagency information sharing. For example, OMB circulars 

are available on OMB's website. At the DoD website, DefenseLink, someone from NASA can read 

DoD acquisition related memoranda and guidance documents in the DoD Acquisition Deskbook. 

From the EPA site someone from the Department of Agriculture can find out more about agricultural 

chemicals and related pollutants/toxics topics. 

 

The 11 respondents confirmed the interests of their departments, agencies and bureaus in: 

• keeping the public informed; 

• complying with statutory requirements and executive directives; and 

• undertaking specific steps to provide information electronically. 

Within the last five years, significant strides have been made in the dissemination of government 

information in electronic format. Agencies are convinced of the advantages in both accessibility and 

availability and the resultant economic (or cost effectiveness) and programmatic gains. Information 

provided to the public is more timely when in electronic format, and the posting of rules and 

regulations requiring public comment provide a quick and easy means of transmitting comments 

within the review period. Filing of information required for permits, licenses and the like can often be 

done electronically and, in fact, will be required under current electronic government initiatives. Those 

wishing to acquire information on a specific subject can search the electronic catalogs of publications 

posted on the web sites, be told where to obtain the information, and in many instances request the 

information through e-mail to the site. Despite all this, most departments and agencies recognize that, 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-107 

for the foreseeable future, much of their information will continue to be printed in order to serve all 

their users' needs. 

All Executive Branch survey respondents reported having web sites at the departmental and lower 

organizational levels. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts' Office of Public Affairs manages 

the AOUSC web site. The department/agency web sites include policies and procedures, press 

releases, fact sheets, listings and indexes of publications and in some instances the full text of a 

publication, statistical and other data. Respondents for the Departments of Labor and Treasury and the 

Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Geological Survey specifically mentioned the requirement 

for appropriate review and clearance of information being placed on the web. Most respondents 

indicated the existence of policies and procedures for the web, though only the Indian Health Services, 

the Departments of Defense and Treasury, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts indicated coverage for adding, changing and deleting 

information. 

The Electronic Freedom of Information Act (E-FOIA) appears to have impacted agencies heavily, in 

that several reported indexes and search capabilities for use by the public in Freedom of Information 

Reading Rooms. The Indian Health Services and the Department of Veterans Affairs refer to their 

Electronic Freedom of Information Reading Rooms, though they don't specifically refer to the 

Electronic Freedom of Information Act. 

Only the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health and the Smithsonian Institution 

report a comprehensive listing of electronically published information; in Defense, information is 

included in the DOD Resource Locator, the Department's implementation of GILS. In other 

Departments, the divisions, bureaus and smaller organizational units maintain listings of their 

publications (printed and electronic) on the web. The Environmental Protection Agency remains active 

in maintaining its Government Information Locator Systems (GILS), and a number of its Program 

Offices maintain listings of their information products. The Federal Communications Commission's 

web site had the Agency's documents back to 1994. 

Governing laws, regulations, etc. The federal statutes and implementing regulations, as well as 

departmental, agency and bureau policies guiding respondents' information dissemination practices are 

also listed in Appendix 26. 

As might have been expected, most Departments have issued policies to implement federal statutes, 

while policy development below the department level varies considerably. The Departments of 

Defense, Health and Human Services (Indian Health Services), Labor, Treasury and Veterans Affairs 

all cite the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), while only the Departments of Defense and Treasury 

cite the Electronic Freedom of Information Act as guiding specific information dissemination policies. 

The Paperwork Reduction Act was cited by the Departments of Health and Human Services (Indian 

Health Services), Labor and Treasury; only the Department of Health and Human Services cited the 

Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act. Though privacy concerns were eliminated from this study 

due to the complexity of the issue and NCLIS' ability to handle that within the framework of the 

broader issues, the Departments of Health and Human Services (Indian Health Services), Treasury and 

Veterans Affairs cited this as a guidance in their information dissemination programs. One Department 

cited five other laws only: 

• Administrative Procedure Act, by the Department of Labor 

• American Technology Preeminence Act, by the Department of Interior, Geological Survey 

• Federal Records Act, by the Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Services 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-108 

• Government Paperwork Elimination Act of 1998, by the Environmental Protection Agency 

• The Rehabilitation Act, Section 508, by the Environmental Protection Agency 

In addition, a number of department and agency specific laws were cited as containing information 

dissemination requirements. The National Geologic Mapping Act governs map distribution within the 

U.S. Geological Survey; 38 U.S.C. paragraphs 5701, 5705, and 7332 govern the Department of 

Veterans Affairs handling of confidential medical records. The Environmental Protection Agency, 

indicating that several others existed, listed several specific laws governing its program areas: the 

Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act, the 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. The 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts within the Judicial Branch follows the Rules Enabling Act in 

making specific information available and receiving comments on proposed new rules. The 

Smithsonian Institution is not a government organization and as such is not bound by federal laws and 

regulations relating to information dissemination. However, its mission to increase and diffuse 

knowledge is incorporated in its charter in 20 U.S.C. paragraph 57. 

Only two Executive Orders (by the Department of Veterans Affairs, number 12600, and the U.S. 

Geological Survey, number 12906) were cited as governing information dissemination programs. 

Though archiving of electronic information appears to be a major concern of most of the responding 

Departments/Agencies, only one—the Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health 

Services referred to NARA's Records Management and Disposition Regulations. The Department of 

Defense, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of Labor cited OMB Circular A-130. Two 

Attorney General issuances were referenced: 

• Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act, by the Department of Labor 

• FOIA Policy Memorandum, by the Department of Veterans Affairs 

All departments and agencies, with the exception of the National Institutes of Health, reported having 

internal directives at the senior levels and often at sub-organizational levels covering information 

dissemination. These are listed in Part B in Appendix 26—the Laws, Regulations and Directives 

Identified in Agency Surveys. 

Permanent access to government information. An area of major concern for the general public, 

researchers and others who make heavy use of government information in their professional or 

personal lives, is the need for permanent availability and access. Responses to a question about 

archiving of official record copies vary widely. Defense is the only Department indicating that 

outdated and superseded information is removed and appropriately archived. The Geologic Division of 

U.S. Geological Survey 's policies provide that information on the web be archived for long-term 

preservation. Again within the U.S. Geological Survey, the Earth Science Information Centers require 

a disposition schedule be created for all publications, The Indian Health Services makes backup copies 

of all content and documents on the web and archives them monthly, though no official record copies 

are maintained. All records created or received in electronic media must be printed and incorporated in 

the official file system. The Financial Management Service (FMS) within Treasury creates a CD of its 

web site on a monthly basis for archival purposes. The Federal Communications Commission creates a 

paper original of its documents for transfer to NARA under its records retention program but hopes to 

transfer records electronically in the future. 

Agency suggestions/recommendations. Each of the Agencies surveyed recognized the value of the 

web in making their information publicly available; they also felt strongly that information paid for by 

the taxpayers must be accessible within the context of legal restrictions on its release. An aggressive 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-109 

program management to ensure the public receives effective and complete dissemination of, or access 

to, agency information may be needed. One even suggested that a requirement should be for a 

comprehensive listing of all available information in each agency's web site. At the same time, many 

felt that any new requirements imposed should carefully evaluate the impact of workload and staff 

capacity to meet the workloads or burdensome and unreasonable expectations or deadlines. 

Several agencies suggested that additional guidance on implementation of the E-FOIA from the 

Department of Justice is needed; from the Office of Management and Budget on the Privacy Act; and 

from government oversight agencies on web posting and content management. 

At least one agency sees the need to review existing requirements with the objective of strengthening 

the government's ability to address security and privacy concerns associated with the aggregation of 

unclassified information made possible and increasingly easy by electronic means such as the World 

Wide Web. Current mandates were initiated for a paper-based world. 

Another agency suggested that federal libraries should be mandated to disseminate agency 

information; that copies o everything printed (or issued electronically) should be forwarded to the 

library for cataloging for later retrieval. In some instances, issues/restrictions imposed on delivery of 

information on the web—security considerations, in particular, are overriding issues of access and the 

free flow of information, e.g., dot.com links are not endorsements of a particular set of information, 

but selected to meet agency needs. Libraries need to be able to apply their criteria for collection 

building to commercial and other sources. Technology should enhance libraries in their ability to 

disseminate information, not be an end to itself or place undue restrictions on what libraries do and do 

well in delivering content, selectivity and quality. 

NARA should establish policies and standards for archiving. It should be forced to receive CD-ROM, 

electronically transmitted to them, or they should designate the PDF or other file format acceptable to 

them. Requiring 6,250 bpi tape, no extraneous characters, and 7-digit block factor is not acceptable in 

today's environment. 

An information clearinghouse approach for all government information may be the best approach, if 

consistent and long-term funding is assured. When a myriad of statutes govern an agency, a major 

challenge is integrating the data and information from the affected programs. 

2. What are the impacts of these constraints and barriers on the ability of other government 

users to obtain the information they need? How are impacts demonstrated? What kinds of 

information should be available that is not available? What are the consequences of the lack 

of this information? 

Paper. It's common for many to call this the "Information Age" It's true that the transfer of 

information is an inseparable part of the business process. But this was true 5000 years ago. What is 

new is the flexibility we now have in our ability to find, access, retrieve, and use information. A robust 

information infrastructure improves the productivity and effectiveness of the business process. 

Organizations have always recognized that information is part of their basic operation. They have not, 

however, always viewed it as a corporate asset to be made available throughout the organization. With 

the recognition that the easy-to-use capabilities of Internet Web browsers could be adapted to be used 

for non-public use (e.g. Intranets), organizations are increasingly making information services 

available to all employees—not just selected ones. Additionally, electronic collaboration and 

coordination improve effectiveness as well as efficiency. Current information technologies can also 

help assure that participants are authorized and authenticated at one or more levels of a process. When 

we began to use information technology to automate processes three or four decades ago its use was 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-110 

cost justified by direct cost reductions. It's no longer quite so easy because the user—not the provider, 

determines the value of information. 

The networked world has added a new dimension. Users now have much more flexibility in finding 

useful information, formatting it in a manner they desire and, through serendipity, finding other 

valuable information. As we have seen with GILS there is both a perceived and a real need for a 

universal method for consistently finding information. 

That said, physical paper, not digital bits, still comprises the bulk of the Federal knowledge base. 

Funding has not been provided to convert the paper store into digital stores. This conversion will 

require millions of dollars that may be better spent elsewhere. In fact, adequate technology may not 

exist to allow the conversion. The point to be remembered is that the majority of government 

documents are not in digital form. These documents, however, may still contain valuable information 

content. There also has not been a will among government leaders to insist on standards that allow 

compatibility among digital information generating systems (e.g. word processors, presentation 

software), digital formats, storage media, or display technology. A continued use of paper as the 

primary, if not exclusive means of disseminating information violates not only the intent but also 

express provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, including the following: 

44 USC 3506(d)(4), which prohibits agencies from establishing any "... exclusive, restricted, or other 

distribution arrangement that interferes with the timely and equitable availability of public 

information..." 

44 USC 3506(d)(1)(B), which requires "... in cases in which the agency provides public information 

maintained in electronic format, [it shall provide] timely and equitable access to the underlying data..." 

[Note: If a file remains on a hard drive after it has been printed, wouldn't you agree that it has been 

"maintained in electronic format"?] 

44 USC 3506(f), which says, "With respect to records management, each agency shall implement ... 

procedures ... for archiving information maintained in electronic format..." [Note: Under the Federal 

Records Act, it is unlawful to destroy any record except under a schedule approved by NARA.] 

5 USC 552 (a)(2) (The Electronic Freedom of Information Act) requires that records created after 

November 1, 1996 be made available to the public by computer telecommunications or other 

electronic means. 

Unique Identifiers. The point-and-click idiom of World Wide Web access has made Internet 

browsing easy, but one soon learns that, too often, finding a site leads to no result. The Uniform 

Resource Locator, or URL, may change at the whim of hardware reconfiguration, file system 

reorganization, or changes in organizational structure, leaving users with a code 404 ... Document Not 

Found. 

This unpredictable mobility of Internet resources is an inconvenience at best. For librarians, it is a 

serious problem that compromises their service to patrons and imposes an unacceptably large burden 

on information catalog maintenance. 

Additionally, current organization identifier systems are not adequate. The most widely used unique 

corporate identifier, developed by Dun & Bradstreet, is a voluntary, commercial system. While 

obtaining a D & B number is free, using the system to identify relationships between business entities 

involves the user paying a fee. Many companies choose not to register for a D & B number. Further, it 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-111 

would be inappropriate for government to mandate the use of a commercial system that users would 

have to pay for to access. 

The Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code system is a five (5) position code that 

identifies companies doing or wishing to do business with the Federal Government. Codes are 

assigned and maintained by the Defense Logistics Information Service, Battle Creek, Michigan. The 

code is used to support a variety of mechanized systems throughout the government. The code 

provides for a standardized method of identifying a given facility at a specific location. The code may 

be used for a Facility Clearance, a Pre-Award survey, automated Bidders Lists, pay processes, source 

of supply, etc. In some cases, prime contractors may require their sub-contractors to have a CAGE 

Code also. 

Alternatively, a business's employer identification number, assigned by the Internal Revenue Service 

for tax purposes, is not linked to a system that shows relationships (full or partial ownership, merges 

and acquisitions) between business entities. For example, when one business merges with or acquires 

another business, both businesses often will continue to file taxes separately, thereby continuing to use 

a separate EIN. Finally, many state, federal and local governments assign unique identification 

numbers to manage permitting, licensing, and compliance records, however there is no single ID 

number that cuts across all federal, state and local governments. Just at the federal level, there is no 

unique ID number that cuts across all agencies. 

Further, even single federal agencies like the IRS, Securities and Exchange Commission, and the 

Environmental Protection Agency, have been unable to create a key identifier system that effectively 

allows the public to integrate information. The SEC requires companies to disclose a wealth of 

information, going far beyond their annual statements, however SEC's identification system only 

covers publicly traded companies. Facilities must disclose information to EPA under a variety of 

programs, however it is extremely difficult to get information that accurately and reliably cuts across 

all of EPA's programs, and it is next to impossible to accurately and reliably identify who owns those 

facilities. 

3. What information produced or collected by the government cannot be made available to 

other government organizations or made publicly available (e.g., received under foreign 

exchange agreements)? How can safeguards be built in to protect privacy and national 

security while making appropriate information available? What is the impact of 

government not being able to release this information? 

Agencies are continually confronted with the challenge of balancing the public's right to know against 

the government's obligations to protect proprietary, privacy, and national security information. 

Agencies must also be sensitive to the need to preserve the integrity of the content of their 

information. One must realize that the government is not a monolithic entity. It is comprised by many 

organizations with a wide range of interests and relationships. Most government policies address either 

the control of information or making it available to the public. There is little or no guidance regarding 

limitations on sharing information with other government organizations. The result quite often is that 

the same rules used to determine public availability are applied to other government agencies. 

Some agencies use their information as a commodity. Some may use information as barter to trade 

with other nations. This provides the agency access to a broader collection of information than would 

otherwise be possible. Sometimes this information comes with restrictions, other times not. Over the 

years there has been debate whether or not government agencies should allow access to information 

obtained from foreign governments through some exchange agreement. In many cases a Memorandum 

of Agreement will specify the distribution limitations. A pragmatic consideration must be recognized. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-112 

Even if there is no legally binding relationship if the entity providing the information does not believe 

their desire for restricted distribution will be honored they simply won't provide the information. Thus, 

in this case, the impact on the government entity releasing information would be greater than the 

impact on those providing it. 

The Department of Defense is an example of a government department that has an extensive process 

for the release of technical information. The process provides for interagency sharing of government 

technical information as well as sharing with government contractors. It also provides for providing 

information to the public at large. It requires information-originating organizations to process their 

documents through a security clearance procedure and, if unclassified, a procedure for determining if 

the information may be made publicly available. Documents are then marked with a distribution 

statement. For documents not made publicly available the statement includes the reason why. The 

distribution marking system (A through F and X) provides for several release conditions. 

The following distribution statements and notices are authorized for use on DoD technical 

documents47

: 

• DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

Technical documents with this statement may be made available or sold to the public and foreign 

nationals, companies, and governments, including adversary governments, and may be exported. 

• DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT B. Distribution authorized to U.S. Government Agencies only. 

• DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT C. Distribution authorized to U.S. Government Agencies and 

their contractors. 

• DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT D. Distribution authorized to the Department of Defense and 

U.S. DoD contractors only. 

• DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT E. Distribution authorized to DoD Component. 

• DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT F. Further dissemination only as directed. This statement F is 

normally used only on classified technical documents. 

• DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT X. Distribution authorized to U.S. Government Agencies and 

private individuals or enterprises eligible to obtain export-controlled technical information. 

Statements must include the reason, the date of determination and the controlling DoD office to which 

requests for this document shall be referred if they fall outside the distribution limitation. Reasons for 

assigning distribution statements B through F include: Foreign Government Information, Proprietary 

Information, Critical Technology, Test and Evaluation, Contractor Performance Evaluation, Premature 

Dissemination, Administrative or Operational Use (To protect technical or operational data or 

information from automatic dissemination under the International Exchange Program or by other 

means), and Software Documentation. 

The process is supported by a registration system run by DTIC that allows users to register for access 

to the distribution categories for which they have been approved. The system applies both to online 

digital and physical media (e.g. paper, CD-ROM, video). 

The Department of Energy and NASA have a similar process. All require a support infrastructure to 

check for authorization to release requested information. 

 

47 Department of Defense Directive Number 5230.24, Distribution Statements on Technical Documents, March 18, 1987. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-113 

4. What are the successes in the dissemination of government information? What has been the 

impact on public and private programs, projects, and innovation? 

General. A few years ago Congressman Doug Walgren stated "Unless the Federal Government, with 

its leading role in the creation of scientific and technical knowledge, can overcome the hurdles we 

insist on putting in our own way, we already know what the future will look like." Information is a key 

component in not only science and technology but in other areas of endeavor. 

• Economy—Jobs and Income Programs; Taxation and the Budget. Increased productivity relies on 

improved methods and technology. Informed decision-making requires outstanding analysis. 

These require government information either generated or acquired by government organizations 

in addition to information obtained from academic and commercial efforts. 

• Health Care. It's been estimated that the management of information consumes 40% of the cost of 

health care. Effective use of medical databases reduces physician cost and time. The World Wide 

Web has helped many people help their physicians through health information facilities. The 

National Library of Medicine, a federal organization, is without question, the premier provider of 

health information in the world and is an integral part of the biomedical research process. 

• Environmental and Energy. Environmental problems are interdisciplinary and global in nature; 

energy is closely linked to the environment. Weather data, water and air monitoring data are 

critical inputs to many communities of interest. 

• Research and Development. R&D is the driving force in industrial competitiveness; scientific 

advancement and technological innovation are built on the cumulative knowledge base of the 

scientific and technical disciplines. Government information aids in technology transfer and 

support of the innovation resulting from the efforts of small businesses make America more 

competitive. 

Some examples of federal collaborative efforts: 

• The National Biological Information Infrastructure is a broad, collaborative program to provide 

increased access to data and information on the nation's biological resources. The NBII links 

diverse, high-quality biological databases, information products, and analytical tools maintained 

by NBII partners and other contributors in government agencies, academic institutions, nongovernment organizations, and private industry. Resource managers, scientists, educators, and the 

general public use the NBII to answer a wide range of questions related to the management, use, 

or conservation of this nation's biological resources. 

• Gray literature is foreign or domestic open source material that usually is available through 

specialized channels and may not enter normal channels or systems of publication, distribution, 

bibliographic control, or acquisition by booksellers or subscription agents. The GrayLIT Network

makes the gray literature of U.S. Federal Agencies easily accessible over the Internet. It taps into 

the search engines of distributed gray literature collections, enabling the user to find information 

without first having to know the sponsoring agency. The GrayLIT Network is a comprehensive 

portal to Federal gray literature. By offering a mode of communication for this hard-to-find class 

of literature, the GrayLIT Network enables convenient access by the American public to 

government information. The Department of Energy (DOE) provides public access to this research 

tool through GPO Access in partnership with the Government Printing Office. Federal Agencies 

participating in this project are DOD/DTIC, DOE, EPA, and NASA. Participation will be 

expanding as the site develops. 

• CBDNet. A new program area at Commerce assumed responsibility for bringing the Commerce 

Business Daily (CBD) into the 21st century. They solicited proposals from organizations to fulfill 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-114 

their vision of a new, electronic CBD that would serve the needs of the Government procurement 

community and American business in the information age. 

After performing a business case analysis of all of the 16 proposals received from commercial 

firms and Government organizations GPO and Commerce signed a strategic alliance for the 

creation of CBDNet. GPO began an agency-wide initiative to create an easy to use, real-time, and 

comprehensive CBD system that is flexible enough to allow for the expansion of CBD beyond 

Federal acquisition opportunities and takes advantage of new developments in information 

dissemination technology. 

In order to support all users, a system was developed that allows agency contracting offices to 

electronically submit their notices directly through the World Wide Web and e-mail as well in the 

traditional manuscript form. Immediate feedback is provided for electronic submissions and 

notices are immediately available online for search and retrieval by the public free of charge. 

This successful project has made it easier and more timely for agencies to electronically submit 

notices for inclusion in CBD, significantly reduced the cost per notice for these submissions (from 

$18.00 to $5.00), allowed for the continuation of a billing and reporting process, provided support 

to all users of CBD, reduced the time necessary for typesetting, and enhanced the delivery of the 

final copy to the printing contractor. 

CBDNet has been well received by participating agencies and the user community. Approximately 

10,000 notices per month have been submitted by agencies for inclusion in CBD. Over 400,000 

downloads of these notices have occurred during CBDNet's first three months of operation. 

• FirstGov. The announcement of the FirstGov.gov effort may be a first step in a standardization 

direction to make government information available to a wider effort. Announced September 22 

FirstGov provides the public with easy, one-stop access to federal government online information 

and services. The web site—located at http://www.firstgov.gov—provides a single online 

information portal that connects Americans with federal information. FirstGov allows users to 

search all 27 million Federal agency web pages at one time. It can search half a billion documents 

in less than one-quarter of a second and handle millions of searches a day. The Web Site also 

provides access to the home pages of major agencies and entities in all three branches of 

government, a section that provides topics of current interest to web users (e.g., a direct link to the 

Weather Service during hurricane season, to NASA during a shuttle launch, or to IRS during tax 

season), and key sites that access State and local government web pages. To increase efficiency, 

allows citizens to find information intuitively—by subject or by keyword48. The search engine 

used by FirstGov is a significant contribution and a great user tool. It is fast and impressive. 

However, "... the search engine needs major improvements in ensuring that information retrieved 

is relevant to the user request. One key element is to develop an underlying thesaurus and 

taxonomy to insure that the user is getting closer to the information he or she wishes. Such tools 

should be linked to applications that help make searches context sensitive, such as through natural 

language or other applications."49

 

48 Katzen, The Honorable Salley, Deputy Director for Management Office of Management and Budget, Testimony before a 

hearing of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, 

October 2, 2000. 

49 McDermott, Dr. Patrice, Information Policy Analyst, OMB Watch, Testimony before a hearing of the Subcommittee on 

Government Management, Information, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, October 2, 2000. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-115 

Although FirstGov states that it provides access to all government online information it does not. 

It covers only publicly available government information available on the Internet. FirstGov.gov, 

can not address documents that either never were or have been removed from government servers. 

FirstGov also does not include enough granularity in its groupings to permit the sophisticated 

information retrieval capability need by many government users. Information users come from 

many and diverse communities. There is a difference between categorization of information and 

indexing of information. Information is often categorized into general groups such as travel, 

medical, or chemistry. These may then be broken down into subcategories (e.g. travel in the U.S., 

in Europe, in Africa). An example of categorization is a table of contents. It leads a reader to a 

chapter or chapters that may contain the desired information. Indexing is more specific. Indexing 

permits specific bits of information to be found. The index of a book indexes specific words or 

phases to the pages where they may be located. Indexing may also used controlled vocabularies to 

aid in the finding of information. Helicopters and rotary winged vehicles are the same thing. 

Controlled vocabularies allow information searching to be performed using a specific word 

controlled word that brings together several words with the same or similar meaning. Using these 

two concepts together can permit a government-wide categorization of information while still 

permitting the more specific identification needed by the organization originally creating the 

information. Thus there is a need for taxonomies at some—or several—level(s). Provision should 

be made under the appropriate sections of OMB Circular A-130 to promote the sharing of 

information among government organizations as well as with the general public. 

Statistical Indicators of Intergovernmental Information Sharing. There are indicators that there is 

demand for government information both from inside government as well as outside. Namely, there is 

a demand by other federal organizations for information generated by other government organizations. 

For example, 

• NTIS—Access Point for Federal STI. Annually NTIS disseminates (note: NTIS does not separate 

government and non-government use. It is reasonable to assume that some percentage of NTIS use 

is by government organizations): 

Paper Reports 75,000 

Microfiche/SRIM 750,000 

Subscriptions 175,000 

Best Selling Books 75,000 

Computer Products 20,000 

Audiovisuals 7,000 

Online/Distributions Millions 

• DTIC—In FY 1999 DTIC provided nearly 53,000 unclassified non-digital documents to 30 

federal government organizations in the Executive and Legislative branches. While 45% of these 

documents went to NTIS and the Library of Congress for their collections serving both the Public 

and Private sectors, 55% went to federal agencies to meet local needs. In addition to these 

"physical" documents 2,410 digital documents were provided to other federal agencies. Delivery 

of digital documents will continue to grow as more documents are made available electronically. 

• GPO—During a recent 11-day period, GPO extracted the number of .gov and .mil addresses 

(excluding state and municipal .gov sites) referring users to GPO Access and the number of 

referrals and compared them to overall addresses referring and the total number of referrals. Some 

635 distinct URLs referred users to the resources of GPO Access. This was 12 percent of the total. 

In all 32,185 referrals were received from these federal government addresses, or a little more than 

23 percent. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-116 

These examples of central information management organizations, are strong indicators of a need for 

government agencies to share information content resources. 

The other side of the coin. This response from one the Departmental libraries queried for this effort is 

typical of the responses from others. "The Main Departmental Library does not have a formal or 

informal arrangement with another government agency. We use the Library of Congress and GPO 

extensively and are pleased with the responses. We are a selective depository library, which 

adequately meets the needs of our Department. We receive minimal requests from other government 

agencies to share depository items. I would estimate that 50% of our clients' needs are satisfied via 

free Web sites. We rely on private sector products for about 30% of the needs of our Departmental 

clientele. Standardization could improve the environment of interagency sharing of information." 

5. What are the likely developments in hardware and software that will enable optimal models 

of content description and dissemination? How can preservation and archiving be assured? 

What systems are needed to insure that information is archived and preserved? What is the 

impact of not having such a system? How much history will we lose? 

Knowledge Management. Knowledge management is one of the current "in" subjects. However, it is 

a concept looking for a definition. However defined, knowledge management is part of the centuries 

long continuum of information management advances. One way of looking at it is that knowledge 

management is a process of building a shared understanding of both tacit as well as recorded 

knowledge, not transplanting a knowledge object from one mind to the next. Information Technology 

continues to advance at an increasingly accelerating rates leaving Information Content Management 

falling behind. One of the problems is that while it's relatively easy to convert digital objects from one 

technology to another it is far more difficult—and expensive—to reconfigure content either to use 

another digital technique or to convert non-digital information to digital. Knowledge management, 

however, is at least driving managers and technicians to consider the wide range of management needs 

throughout its information life cycle. Like the World Wide Web—in fact, the Internet—we are in the 

early years and thus, whatever is done, can and will be done better—tomorrow.. Some companies are 

beginning to produce product ranges that include integrated software tools for managing information 

through a significant portion of its life cycle. For example, tools for: 

• Internet servers for monitoring information sources across networks to automatically acquire 

personalized information to individuals and groups, based on their content and delivery 

preferences. But this brings with it both privacy and security concerns. 

• Facilities to index, search and retrieve information on Web and file servers distributed across the 

enterprise and stored in many formats. 

• Automated categorizing and indexing and knowledge organizing tools. 

• Display and portal development tools. 

Standards. Forced use of standards is normally resisted. Agencies and individuals often feel standards 

impede progress and cost more than they are worth. These beliefs are true if applied to a limited vision 

of the community. When the community expands and other communities join in problems may arise. 

In a digital environment they will arise and, like it or not, standards become the norm after a 

significant period of upheaval. It's interesting to note, that despite the historical perception that 

standards inhibit innovation, the Internet is based upon a set of voluntary standards developed within 

the Internet technical community. 

• GILS. As discussed earlier GILS was an attempt to install a standard Government Information 

Locator Service. Included in this effort was a requirement for certain data elements and an implied 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-117 

requirement to use the Z39.50 standard for information retrieval. Z39.50 is an international 

standard for communication between computer systems, primarily library and information related 

systems. When GILS was announced few information retrieval offerings included a Z39.50 

implementation. That, plus a requirement for some level of file redesign and management meant 

few federal agencies implemented a Z39.50 facility for GILS. 

• Structured exchange. Another change is on the horizon. The Extensible Markup Language (XML) 

is a method for putting structured data in a text file. The Hypertext Mark Up Language (HTML) 

used to create many web pages, while a good tool for creating Web pages, is static. HTML 

presents a fixed snapshot of data. XML structures data, allowing much more fluidity. With XML, 

Web sites can exchange data much more easily, a process that greatly facilitates information 

exchange. While HTML specifies what each tag & attribute means (and often how the text 

between them will look in a browser) XML leaves the interpretation of the data completely to the 

application that reads it. This makes it flexible and adaptable. 

• Digital Archiving. A reference model is a framework for identifying concepts and relationships. It 

is possible to "hang" standards on such a framework, because it provides an abstraction of a small 

number of key, unifying concepts that can be used to explain to others what the "business" is all 

about. When the Consultative Committee on Space Data Systems (CCSDS) was asked by 

International Standards Organization (ISO) to develop standards for digital archiving of spatial 

data, it became apparent that there was no consensus on what digital archiving meant. There was 

no clear definition of an archiving service. It became apparent that preserving digital information 

is not the same as preserving bits. Therefore, the CCSDS decided that what is needed before 

development of actual standards is a reference model for archiving. From the beginning, the 

emphasis has been on digital archiving, but the group decided early not to ignore physical 

archives. In both digital and physical archives, the system is made up of hardware, software, and 

people. 

In 1995, the CCSDS began the development of the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) 

Reference Model. The model is called "open" because it has been a very public process. The 

process has involved a number of information gathering activities that resulted in review and input 

from an ever-growing number of stakeholder groups. The first international workshop was held in 

October 1995. International workshops have been held twice a year since that time. A small group, 

which actually develops the reference model, meets four times a year. 

To begin the small group selected several key documents on digital archiving, including a seminal 

work from the Commission on Preservation and Access authored by Don Waters. They also 

looked at other reference models. A formal specification technique called OMT (Object Modeling 

Technique) was selected to model the information in an archive. 

A key component of the reference model is the glossary of reference terms. Care was taken to 

identify primitive concepts, but also to select terms and definitions that attempt to bridge the terms 

currently in use by different stakeholder groups. Generally, the groups have found that they are 

able to map their community-specific terms to the reference model terms. In February 2000, under 

the sponsorship of CENDI and the International Committee for Scientific and Technical 

Information (ICSTI) a workshop was held in Paris, France. The purpose was to discuss the 

challenge of archiving digital information. A follow-up session at ICSTI's Annual General 

Assembly included discussion on how the OAIS Reference model can be adapted for textual 

information in addition to digital data. 

• Persistent Identifiers. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a large open international 

community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with the 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-118 

evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth operation of the Internet. It is open to any 

interested individual. One of the IETF's working groups is to define both a Uniform Resource 

Name (URN) framework and an initial set of components that fit this framework. 

URNs are persistent identifiers for information resources. The framework will define the 

mechanics for enabling global scope, persistence, and legacy support requirements of URNs; 

requirements for namespaces to support this structure will also be defined. Although the 

framework will allow URNs to be defined that vary in terms of degree of scalability and 

persistence, ensuring "user friendliness" of all resultant identifiers is beyond the scope of this 

group. 

Standardization, however, is necessarily slow and deliberate. Putting all the pieces in place 

requires consensus in the IETF, developments in the community of Web browser implementers, 

and deployment of new code by the community of network system managers who administer the 

Domain Name System (DNS) for the Internet. Accordingly, there are several efforts to implement 

approaches addressing the persistence problem during the period of URN development. Two 

examples follow: 

The Online Computer Library Center, Inc. (OCLC) has deployed a naming system and resolution 

service for cataloged Internet resources that will assure systematic and reliable access to named 

resources. The naming scheme is using the accepted and stable syntax of URLs. The names, which 

can be thought of as Persistent URLs (PURLS), can be used both in documents and in cataloging 

systems, thereby increasing the probability of correct resolution and reducing the burden and 

expense of catalog maintenance.50

 

The Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI) has developed the Handle System®, a 

comprehensive system for assigning, managing, and resolving persistent identifiers, known as 

"handles," for digital objects and other resources on the Internet. Handles can be used as Uniform 

Resource Names (URNs). The Handle System® includes an open set of protocols, a namespace, 

and an implementation of the protocols. The protocols enable a distributed computer system to 

store handles of digital resources and resolve those handles into the information necessary to 

locate and access the resources. This associated information can be changed as needed to reflect 

the current state of the identified resource without changing the handle, thus allowing the name of 

the item to persist over changes of location and other state information. Combined with a centrally 

administered naming authority registration service, the Handle System® provides a general 

purpose, distributed global naming service for the reliable management of information on 

networks over long periods of time.51

The goal of global uniqueness is easily met through the central administration of names or 

Handles. The issue of location independence is met through the consolidation of naming under a 

stable resolution host with reliable service levels. 

 

50 Taken from the 1995 November/December issue of the OCLC Newsletter http://purl.oclc.org/docs/purl_summary.html. 51 See Corporation for National Research Initiatives Handle System® at http://www.handle.net/introduction.html. For a more 

complete discussion of the Handle system and its use in the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) application see the Quarterly 

Newsletter of the International Council for Scientific and Technical Information, No. 30, April 1999, 

http://www.icsti.org/icsti/forum/fo9904.html. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-119 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

There continues to be a need for NTIS, GPO, NARA, national libraries, and other central service 

bureau types of information services. The need, however, goes far beyond these organizations. There 

is a need to extend to all government information the information content management disciplines 

under which these organizations operate. 

 

OMB Circular A-130 does not adequately address information sharing among federal organizations. 

Provision should be made under the appropriate sections of the circular to promulgate the sharing of 

information among government organizations. A comprehensive look is needed at how to maximize 

access to government information—both paper and electronic, publication and record of government 

activity—and a plan for achieving meaningful access needs development. If the assessment starts by 

addressing the issue of information sharing among federal organizations it follows that it will also 

address the issue of greater public access. 

Except in certain specific communities such as the scientific and technical information communities 

there is no consistent organizational (metadata, indexing, etc) discipline in agency information. Hence, 

there are no facilities for government agencies to discover and access much of the information that 

may be of use to them. Many government policies try to assure the availability of government 

information to the public so that it can be used to assure openness in government, allow technology 

transfer, and provide a valuable information source for the public to use. Circular A-130 addresses 

information sharing among government agencies primarily from the standpoint of paperwork 

reduction, urging agencies to look at satisfying new information needs through interagency or 

intergovernmental sharing. In fact, Intra-agency or interagency use of sharing of government 

information is specifically excluded from the A-130 definition of the term dissemination. Sharing of 

information systems, not information content, is a policy requirement. 

Interagency information content sharing efforts are largely done in an ad hoc manner and done within 

a specific community of interest. Policy does not exist to bring the collective experience of agencies to 

formulate some general policies nor does it appear that there is any great Congressional or Presidential 

interest in allocating money to bring "order to the information chaos." The announcement of the 

FirstGov.gov effort may be a first step in a standardization direction to make government information 

available to a wider effort. FirstGov.gov, however, cannot address documents that either never were 

on or have been removed from government servers. FirstGov also does not include enough granularity 

in its groupings to permit the sophisticated information retrieval capability need by many government 

users. FirstGov does not address the fundamental issue that although the Internet is a public utility all 

information is not public information. Network security, personal privacy and protection of business 

information and intellectual property pose the same fundamental problem. With adequate access 

controls and network encryption, the same systems concepts used to provide a fully open Internet to 

the world population can be used to address internal business needs. 

Information users come from many and diverse communities. There is a difference between 

categorization of information and indexing of information. Using these two concepts together can 

permit a government-wide categorization of information while still permitting the more specific 

identification needed by the organization originally creating the information. There is a need for 

taxonomies at some—or several—level(s). 

Access to government information is only one aspect of the challenge of exploiting the information 

content resource. Two critically important digital challenges must also be addressed: continuous, longterm access to this digital government information accessible agency web sites, and its preservation. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-120 

OMB Circular A-130 inappropriately limits the inventory provisions of 44 USC 3506(b)(4) by 

applying them only to "major" systems, holdings, and dissemination products. All electronic 

information systems, regardless of size, create electronic records ( E-records) and all E-records should 

be managed. At a minimum, agencies should obtain NARA's approval to dispose of any E-records 

received or generated in any system... and stakeholders should be given the opportunity to comment 

not only on the retention/disposition schedule but also the indexing/ classification scheme for each 

records series. (36 CFR 1234.10(d) requires agencies to address records management requirements 

before approving any new electronic information system or enhancements to existing systems.) Thus, 

the records disposition/ classification scheme should become the inventory required by 44 USC 

3506(b)(4). 

1. Recommendation: Institutionalize interagency cooperative efforts for information sharing.

OMB Circular A-130 should include provisions for intergovernmental sharing of information. The 

term "life-cycle planning" used in A-130 should be better defined to address planning for the 

sharing and use of information content for research and development, for decision-making, and to 

ensure an adequate record of governmental activities. Analysis, recently begun by GAO, should be 

carried forward to determine what is needed to ensure privacy, confidentiality, security, and 

authenticity as information is shared and integrated across agencies, and policies established and 

implemented. 

2. Recommendation: Clarify "life-cycle planning" in OMB Circular A- 130. 

Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), Title XVII of Public Law 105-277, promotes 

the use of digital signatures and the submission of reports to the Federal Government 

electronically. Attachment B, Element #4, Interagency Reporting Requirements of the OMB 

implementing guidance calls for "A short description of the interagency report or information 

dissemination product..." Generic descriptions of each report and "dissemination product" are 

better than nothing. (By law, any "dissemination product" deemed to be "major" already should be 

described in GILS. However, in order to share information efficiently and effectively across 

agencies (as well as with the public), each "data element' within each report or "dissemination 

product" will need to be identified and its characteristics should be specified. The logical time to 

do so is when designing the "forms" which will gather the data. The best way to avoid needless 

redundancies is provide for a registry of the data elements and require the Offices of Primary 

Responsibility (OPR) to consult it before establishing any new elements on any forms. 

3. Recommendation: In providing the public the opportunity to submit information by 

electronic means, as required by the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), 

agencies should be expected to render the required data elements in XML format on the 

Internet in order to facilitate interoperability and ease of use. 

4. Recommendation: An interagency committee should be established to develop an 

information taxonomy to be established federal government-wide. 

5. Recommendation: Agencies should be required, when seeking NARA's approval to dispose 

of records, to specify the metadata by which each of their records series will be classified. 

This will aid in the searching and acquisition of government information, preferably on the 

Internet. Agencies should also be required to consult with their stakeholders concerning needed 

information taxonomies within the context of their annual GPRA performance plans and reports. 

6. Recommendation: A comprehensive analysis should be conducted regarding what currently 

non-digital government information should be converted to digital and the cost to do so. 

7. Recommendation: A comprehensive analysis should be conducted regarding what need to be 

done to assure permanent public access to digital publications produced by Federal agencies. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-121 

8. Recommendation: An interagency committee should be established to identify and 

recommend how federal identifiers can be used to assist agencies and the public in obtaining 

information residing in different agencies. 

Access should be designed to help agencies and the public determine compliance with the laws 

and regulations, and identify duplicative requirements. Such recommendations should be 

forwarded to the President's Management Council and GSA for use in FirstGov, the government's 

web portal. 

9. Recommendation: A comprehensive analysis should be conducted and recommendations 

made on the most efficient ways to translate and coordinate the many state and local 

government—assigned unique identification numbers used to manage permitting, licensing, 

and compliance records with the federal unique identifiers. 

10. Recommendation: An information technology research program should be established to 

address the Federal government's most critical requirements for long-term information 

content needs. These include: security (including information integrity and authenticity) and 

privacy; data integration; and scalable information infrastructure to improve the capability 

and reliability of the government's information infrastructure. 

11. Recommendation: OSTP step forward to assume the role it has in statute to provide 

oversight in the effective management of STI—perhaps even form a COSATI like group 

which has membership from both the public and private sectors. 

Although STI is better managed than most government information it is a critical national resource 

warrants a strong central leadership to maximize resource sharing, both among government 

agencies and with the general public. 

PANEL 2, APPENDIX A: MEMBERS OF PANEL 2 

Kurt Molholm, Panel 2 Chairman, Administrator, Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), and 

Chair, CENDI kmolholm@dtic.mil

Owen Ambur, Systems Analyst, Division of Information Resources Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS), Department of the Interior (DOI), and Co-Chair, XML Working Group, U.S. 

Federal CIO Council Owen_Ambur@fws.gov

Lawrence Brandt, Program Director for Digital Government, National Science Foundation (NSF) 

lbrandt@nsf.gov

Jonda Byrd, National Library Network Program Manager, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Byrd.Jonda@epamail.epa.gov

Bonnie Carroll, Executive Director, CENDI and President Information International Associates, Inc. 

bcarroll@infointl.com 

Blane Dessy, Director, Library Staff, Department of Justice (DOJ) and Vice Chair, Federal Library 

and Information Center Committee (FLICC) blane.dessy@usdoj.gov

 

T. C. Evans, Assistant Director, Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services, U.S. 

Government Printing Office (GPO) tevans@gpo.gov
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-122 

Walter Finch, Associate Director for Business Development, National Technical Information Service 

(NTIS) wfinch@ntis.fedworld.gov 

Patrice McDermott, Co-Director, Agenda for Access, OMB Watch patricem@ombwatch.org

Ray Mosley, Director, Office of the Federal Register (OFR), National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA) ray.mosley@fedreg.nara.gov

Alvin Pesachowitz, Director, IT Consulting, Grant Thornton LLP apesachowitz@gt.com 

George Roncaglia, Head, Scientific and Technical Information Program Office, National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration (NASA) http://www.sti.nasa.gov 

Kent Smith, Deputy Director, National Library of Medicine (NLM) smith@nlm.nih.gov

 

John Shuler, Richard J. Daily Library, University of Illinois at Chicago alfred@uic.edu

 

J. Timothy Sprehe, Sprehe Information Management Associates, Inc. 

jtsprehe@jtsprehe.com

Susan Tarr, Executive Director, Federal Library and Information Center Committee (FLICC), 

Library of Congress suta@loc.gov

Walter Warnick, Director, Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Department of Energy 

(DOE) Walter.Warnick@science.doe.gov

Observers: Ann Miller, Government Documents Roundtable (GODORT) of the American Library 

Association (ALA) aemiller@duke.edu and Lynne Bradley, American Library Association (ALA) 

Washington Office leb@alawash.org 

PANEL 2, APPENDIX B: FOIA EXEMPTIONS 

Types of records that may be withheld. 

Number 1. Those properly and currently classified in the interest of national defense or foreign policy. 

Number 2. Those related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices. 

Number 3. Those concerning matters that a statute specifically exempts from disclosure by terms that 

permit no discretion on the issue, or in accordance with criteria established by that statute for 

withholding or referring to particular types of matters to be withheld. Examples are: 

• Patent Secrecy 

• Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data 

• Communications Intelligence 

• Authority to withhold from Public Disclosure Certain Technical Data 

• Protection of Intelligence Sources and Methods 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-123 

Number 4. Those containing trade secrets or commercial or financial information that a DoD 

Component receives from a person or organization outside the Government with the understanding 

that the information or record will be retained on a privileged or confidential basis in accordance with 

the customary handling of such records. 

Number 5. Internal advice, recommendations, and subjective evaluations, as contrasted with factual 

matters, that are reflected in records pertaining to the decision-making process. Examples: 

• Nonfactual portions of staff papers, to include after-action reports and situation reports containing 

staff evaluations, advice, opinions, or suggestions. 

• Advice, suggestions, or evaluations prepared on behalf the Department by individual consultants, 

or by boards, committees, councils, groups, panels, etc., that are formed for the purpose of giving 

advice and recommendations. 

• The nonfactual portions of evaluations by Departmental personnel of contractors and their 

products. 

• Information of a speculative, tentative, or evaluative nature or such matters as proposed plans to 

acquire and dispose of materials, real estate, facilities, or functions when disclosure would provide 

unfair competitive advantage or would impede legitimate government functions. 

• Trade secrets or other confidential research development or commercial information owned by the 

government. 

• Planning, programming, and budgetary information, which is involved in the planning and 

resource allocation process. 

Number 6. Information in personnel and medical files, as well as similar personal information in other 

files, that, if disclosed, would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

Number 7. Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, i.e., civil, criminal, or 

military law. 

Number 8. Records contained in or related to examination, operation, or condition reports prepared 

for, or in behalf of, or for the use of any agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of 

financial institutions. 

Number 9. Records containing geological and geophysical information and data (including maps) 

concerning wells. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-124 

APPENDIX 25. PANEL THREE: FINAL REPORT ON CITIZEN, BUSINESS, 

LOWER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, LIBRARY, AND OTHER NEEDS FOR 

PUBLIC INFORMATION PRODUCTS AND SERVICES 

This and the other three panel reports were submitted to the U.S. National 

Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) as part of the assessment. 

However, the opinions are those of the panel members, not necessarily those of the 

Commission. Any panel recommendations that the Commission has accepted are 

reflected in the Commission's own recommendations in A Comprehensive Assessment 

of Public Information Resources, Volume 1. 

REPORT OF STUDY PANEL NUMBER THREE 

REPORT OF PANEL THREE ON EXTERNAL USER NEEDS 

CONTENTS52

Introduction 

External Users 

Current Dissemination 

Opportunities 

 Return on Investment and Benefits of Government Information 

Archiving, Access, and Preservation 

Scientific and Technical Information 

Panel 3, Appendix A: Members of Panel 3 

INTRODUCTION 

Panel Three (external user needs) was charged with determining the extent and the reasons why 

current federal government information products and services, e.g. NTIS, GPO, NARA, the Library of 

Congress, etc., fail to adequately satisfy external (i.e. non-governmental) user needs. External users 

include: private corporations; institutions such as universities, research organizations, and hospitals; 

library and other intermediary distributors of government information (including public, state, 

academic, research, depository, and special libraries); public interest groups; and individual citizens 

There are a number of reasons for the failure. For example, some laws need updating to better reflect 

current practices, policies, and technology. Overall, the expectations of users have risen dramatically 

under the impact of new technologies, a rise that can be expected to continue as the technologies 

continue to expand their capacity to deliver information more effectively and efficiently. 

This report discusses external users and their need for dissemination of up-to-date federal information; 

opportunities for more active dissemination; benefits due to the government's information investment; 

 

52 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen25.pdf. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-125 

archiving, access, and preservation issues; a model for the dissemination of scientific and technical 

information; and recommendations for improving dissemination of all government information. 

Lack of time precluded an in-depth study of user needs, practices, and detailed analyses of issues. The 

panel's activities focused on defining critical issues and suggesting alternative mechanisms and 

opportunities for the dissemination of government information. 

For purposes of this report, the panel has limited its definition of information to material in the public 

domain and excluded confidential business and personal information, trade secrets, information likely 

to affect rulemaking or law enforcement, information affecting national security ,and FOIA-exempt 

information 

EXTERNAL USERS 

Non-governmental users of information include the citizenry at large, business, state and local 

governments, scientists, engineers, health care practitioners, rural populations, individual inventors, 

educators, research organizations, public interest groups, and special interest groups dealing with 

health, environment, and other issues. 

Each citizen has a variety of professional, work related, and personal information needs. The 

availability of accurate and timely information often can often mean the difference between success 

and failure, health and illness, learning or ignorance, and economic growth and stagnation. 

Information has no value until it is used. Inaccessible information cannot be retrieved or used and has 

little value. 

The availability of government information on the Internet has increased the number of users and uses 

of government information. The number of users directly accessing information on the Internet has 

expanded dramatically. At the same time the need for librarians and other information professionals 

has increased. Librarians are in great demand to organize information, to help people find what they 

need on the Internet, and to help people evaluate and apply the information they find. The databases 

and information offerings of the National Library of Medicine, the Department of Energy, the 

Securities and Exchange Commission, NTIS, NOAA, NASA, and EPA have made it easier for 

researchers and citizens to find and use needed information. 

People need access to government information to learn about what their government is doing. They 

need access to a vast range of information to make their lives better. They need to know of potentially 

harmful situations and events such as air pollution conditions, dangerous storms, or faulty tires. 

Researchers, scholars, and product developers need ready and timely access to a wide variety of 

scientific, technical, and business-related information and data. The cost to citizens of not having 

information readily available cannot be calculated. 

Taxpayers have paid for the creation of this information and should be able to retrieve and use it. 

Citizens require information from all levels of government: federal, state, local, and tribal. The Federal 

government is in an excellent position to develop information dissemination models and standards 

applicable to state, local, and tribal government information. 

The government needs to enact legislation and implement systems that maximize availability of 

information to the public. The systems need to be sustainable and easy to use and to ensure the 

authenticity, integrity, and preservation of government information. External users want easy retrieval 

and accessibility. Agencies want systems that make it easy to disseminate information. Private 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-126 

industry needs to acquire information and data in raw form so that they can add value and provide 

additional services to the public. 

CURRENT DISSEMINATION 

An NCLIS white paper dealing with myths and realities of the information age comments on federal 

information policy: 

Success in searching for, finding, and utilizing precisely the information a user seeks, 

and only the information a user seeks, is only as good as the quality, the integrity, the 

timeliness and the accuracy of the federal information infrastructure which is 

searched.53

The current situation results in great frustration for users who have to search many government 

databases and web sites that are poorly organized and provide little or no information about the 

content of source documents. 

People access government information online through GPO Access, GILS, First Gov, Fed World, 

Thomas, as well as directly on agency web sites. They also reach government information—online and 

off—from private industry sources and depositary libraries. Government information may appear in 

many formats—as books, periodicals, technical reports, or Web-only documents. Digitally, 

government output may also include CD-ROMs or floppy disks; non-digitally, it may appear as 

microfilm images. 

Releasing information on the Internet reduces the time between information generation and 

information use. Generally, the cost of information delivery on the Internet is less than delivery in 

other media. Distribution of information in print, CD-ROM, or microform delays delivery to the 

public. Production and distribution times are longer than distribution online. The Internet can provide 

text, numeric data, graphics, animation, and simulation in a more useful form for the people using the 

information. 

In the past public acquisition of government information depended upon depository libraries, 

government bookstores, and mail order from GPO. If a person did not live near a library, they simply 

could not get the information easily or quickly. While this system worked well in the print-on-paper 

era, it now must evolve into the rapidly emerging electronic and networked-based environment. 

Younger people, especially, do not want to access information in paper. They are accustomed to using 

the Internet for quick and easy access to information wherever and whenever they need it. 

The electronic mode makes it possible to deliver information wherever the reader may 

be (for instance, to his or her computer in the home or workplace, or by wireless 

technology to any place), to present information that cannot be captured in print (such 

as video attachments, tables that can be manipulated and so on), and to facilitate use 

of information through quality interfaces and search capabilities.54 

 

53 The White Paper entitled Some Important Information Age Paradigm Shifts and Their Associated Myths and Realities is 

available as Appendix 15 and at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen15.pdf. 54 National Research Council, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board. LC21: A Digital Strategy for the Library of 

Congress. Washington, DC: National Academy Press (2001). This reference is to a prepublication copy, dated July 26, 2000. 

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/0a254cd9b53e0bc585256777004e74d3/bd6c8fce95b00a6d852569280047753a?

OpenDocument. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-127 

The Internet is the medium of choice for many in business, education, and general information 

seekers. The Internet does not represent an incremental improvement, but a basic change in the 

distribution of information in all forms. Before the World Wide Web, publishers viewed the Internet 

as an add-on to print, CD-ROMs, and microfilm. Paper was the primary medium for distribution of 

information. It is still preferred by many people, but is not the medium of choice for the future. Now 

many publishers and most young people view the Internet as the primary source for information. Print 

has become the add-on. 

More than 95% of all U.S. public schools have access to the Internet.55 A number of public and private 

activities have made this connectivity possible. The "digital divide" is a reality, but it is gradually 

disappearing. Just as reductions in price resulted in VCRs becoming ubiquitous in U.S. households, 

reductions in the price of computers and commercial offerings of free Internet access are bringing the 

Internet into more households. The use of computers and the Internet by more school children also is 

stimulating sales and access. According to Nielsen/Net Ratings, Internet users with annual incomes 

between $21,000 and $33,000 spent more time on the Internet than the average Internet user.56

Just as some U.S. households lack television, telephones, and VCRs, some households will not be 

Internet users. The Pew Internet & American Life Project found, 

Most of the strongest Internet holdouts are older Americans, who are fretful about the 

online world and often don't believe it can bring them any benefits.57 

At the same time, articles in newspapers and magazines record tales of older citizens using the Internet 

to exchange email with grandchildren, learn more about health care and other issues of interest, and 

chat with peers. In fact, senior citizens represent a fast-growing segment of Internet users. Bottom line, 

online access extends across the whole population spectrum and continues to expand its reach 

exponentially. 

The private sector plays an important role in providing organized and value-added government 

information products and services online and in print. Libraries and businesses rely on the private 

sector for packaged information products and services. The private sector, like libraries and federal 

agencies, needs to acquire government information efficiently, quickly, and in usable formats, in order 

to supply value-added information to their customers. Private industry also can help government by 

sharing experience and expertise in electronic publishing. 

OPPORTUNITIES 

While extraordinary opportunities to change and improve the way people acquire government 

information have emerged, a variety of barriers constrain active dissemination of government 

information. We need to establish an intelligent, robust, easy to use, and sustainable system for 

distribution of government information to external users. 

More effective dissemination of government information could be assured by:

• Updating statutory authority for information programs; 

 

55 Newsbytes, September 11, 2000; Edupage, September 13, 2000. 56 New York Times Online, September 25, 2000; Edupage, September 25, 2000. 57 Amanda Lenhart. Who’s Not Online: 57% of those without Internet access say they do not plan to log on. Pew Internet & 

American Life Project; http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=21. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-128 

• Providing for information technology infrastructure in the federal government and collaboration 

among agencies; 

• Identifying incentives for agencies to be more proactive in dissemination of their agency 

resources; 

• Gaining greater understanding of public information requirements; 

• Increasing appropriations to support information technology programs; and 

• Providing information to the private sector for the production of customized and value-added 

products. 

Federal agencies are not mandated by law to disseminate all information collected or gathered in the 

course of their operations. In its efforts to foster efficient agency operations and save money, Congress 

has discouraged issuing "unnecessary" reports and information, often not realizing that these reports 

and data may constitute valuable research material. 

An efficient federal information distribution program requires a coherent infrastructure. The 

infrastructure would include appropriate hardware, software, shared expertise, administrative support, 

and standards for electronic publishing, cataloging, metadata, abstracting, indexing, and 

interoperability. Extra support should be made available to agencies, especially small agencies that 

cannot afford to build information dissemination systems. 

Historically, lack of full collaboration among agencies has stemmed from issues related to turf and 

territory in the design of systems for dissemination and long-term preservation and access. In addition, 

sometimes confusion occurs concerning agency responsibilities regarding information and 

dissemination programs. 

Collaboration would permit agencies to share knowledge, expertise, standards, and infrastructure. In 

particular, the development of standards would reduce obstacles in public access to government 

information. Congress should reaffirm that agencies make a concerted effort to disseminate 

information they collect. In addition, these agencies should collaborate on information dissemination. 

Technology presents extraordinary opportunities to create government information dissemination 

programs that deliver information to people, in and out of government, where and when they need it. 

The report of the Fifth Solomon's Island Interagency Conference on Public Access observed: 

Technology advances offer less costly and more effective techniques to disseminate 

electronic information, resulting in a significant increase in the number of people and 

organizations that can utilize information in electronic format. The increased 

recognition of the value of current information to the individual recipients and to the 

nation has led to a growing demand on the part of the public to exercise their rights to 

such access.58

This conference was held in 1994 before the rise of the World Wide Web and metadata standards and 

the dramatic increase in the installed base of computers with access to the Internet in homes, offices, 

and schools. 

 

58 Fifth Solomons Interagency Conference on Public Access, June 27-28, 1994, Working with the Public to Ensure Public 

Access to Federal Information in an Electronic Age: Proceedings. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

September 1994; http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/fifthsol.html. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-129 

Timeliness of information is critical. Many information items require "real time" dissemination to be 

useful. For example, in large cities with severe air pollution problems, parents need to know ozone 

levels to determine if it is safe for asthmatic children and people with respiratory diseases to be out of 

their homes. Vacationers and people living close to oceans, rivers, and lakes are concerned with health 

advisories about beaches and probable stormy conditions. Real time information is an excellent 

example of effective and valuable dissemination by public and private organizations through the 

broadcast media and the Internet. 

On the user side, many potential users do not know the breadth and depth of available information, 

where information is located, or how to get it. Many people simply give up when they do not find 

what they need on the Internet. They make the assumption that needed information does not exist. 

Librarians help people find information, but some people do not use libraries. 

Disabled citizens have special needs for information and for access methods. For example, visually 

handicapped people would benefit significantly from voice-activated systems becoming increasingly 

common. People whose native language is not English would benefit from use of automatic translators 

that can translate into several languages. 

Return on Investment and Benefits of Government Information

Industry, business, universities, and others need government information for all aspects of their 

operations. Their information needs range from regulatory information to financial, economic, and 

demographic data, scientific and technical information, and weather. Making information easily 

accessible to business can result in better decisions, better compliance with regulations, and greater 

productivity. Efficient and widespread dissemination of information using the Internet is the key to 

connecting agencies collecting and storing information with the individuals and organizations that can 

use the information to solve problems and generate new knowledge. 

Dissemination of government information and its use create significant public benefit. Information 

enables people to learn about their government, issues affecting their quality of life, regulations related 

to the work place, how to grow healthy children and healthy plants, research on health and medicine, 

the exploration of space, etc. More timely release of regulatory information fosters compliance with 

various laws and rules affecting the environment, health, and the work place. 

Elected officials, economists, and policy analysts repeatedly remind us that we live in a knowledge 

society where information is the key resource and asset. In this environment, information and learning 

become the key drivers to maintaining national superiority in science, technology, innovation, and 

economic growth. The Internet has transformed education and health care. More and more colleges, 

universities, and private companies offer courses and degrees to users remote from college campuses. 

Corporations use the Internet to disseminate training and education to employees around the globe. 

The wide availability of health information is producing consumers with more knowledge of diseases, 

options for healing, health, and wellness. It is essential that citizens have government-produced 

information on which they can rely. 

As the world's largest producer of information the federal government has a unique and critical role in 

the information society and the nation's future scientific and economic development. The investment 

made by the taxpayers in research, data gathering, and the dissemination of information has been and 

will continue to be a key resource that returns enormous benefit to the economy and society. The 

maximum return on this investment and the maximum public good can be achieved only if 

government produced information and research results are disseminated in an effective manner on the 

Internet. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-130 

The federal government funds a substantial portion of all scientific and technical research. This 

research helps the U.S. maintain its competitive edge in medicine, science, and technology. Failure to 

widely disseminate research results means that this valuable asset remains unused and unproductive. 

Inaccessible research results cannot be transformed into products and processes that contribute to 

economic growth and productivity. 

ARCHIVING, ACCESS, AND PRESERVATION 

We are in danger of losing our history and valuable research results because documents (print, film, 

and digital) are not being archived and preserved. More and more information is being "born digital" 

and disseminated that way. This information is often here today and gone tomorrow. The loss of 

history and documentation denies valuable information and data to future generations. 

Information architectures must include systems that enable permanent and sustainable access to 

government information. These systems must offer permanent storage, access, retrieval, and 

preservation of government information. Systems must provide for sustainable preservation of content, 

context, and the structure of information, as well as ensure the authenticity, reliability, and integrity of 

content. 

The critical need for a reliable, stable archive, which is trusted by all parties, is a 

primary concern in information management today. For government information, 

there is a national responsibility to protect the taxpayers' investment.59

An archive is an active collection where people can go to access lesser used, valuable or rare materials. 

It is not a repository of dead documents. Preservation involves permanent protection of information 

materials from decay or decomposition. 

Commitment to preserve our history and preserve information for access by future generations is 

essential. This can be achieved through the implementation of archiving and preservation systems and 

the collaboration of archivists, librarians, records managers, and information technology experts. 

A recent report on the information infrastructure of the physical sciences stated, "Traditional means of 

access to the scholarly records are no longer sufficient to meet researchers' needs and expectations or 

even to follow the rapid pace of scientific developments."60 The report points out that lack of 

information can cause great harm and waste millions of dollars, as in the case of the Challenger 

accident where known data failed to reach the decision making process. 

Scientific and technological development does not just happen. Scientists and engineers rely on a wide 

body of previous and current work to provide the foundation for their work. In addition, they learn 

about new methodologies, successful and unsuccessful experiments and processes. Scientific and 

technological advances often take years. Chemists, physicists, mechanical engineers, civil engineers, 

and others depend on work done in the past. This work must be archived, made available for access, 

and be preserved, so that we can continue to learn from the past. J. Robert Oppenheimer in his book, 

Uncommon Sense, stated, "The History of Science is rich in examples of the fruitfulness of bringing 

 

59 Ibid. 

60 Workshop Report on a Future Information Infrastructure for the Physical Sciences: The Facts of the Matter: Finding, 

Understanding, and Using Information About Our Physical World, Washington, DC, May 30-31, 2000, Washington, DC: 

Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information, no date; 

http://www.osti.gov/physicalsciences/wkshprpt
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-131 

two sets of techniques, two sets of ideas developed in separate contexts for the pursuit of new truth, 

into touch with one another." Today, some areas of science are becoming highly interdisciplinary. For 

example, the development of new building materials involves chemists, mechanical engineers, 

structural engineers, and materials scientists. Development of artificial limbs may involve mechanical 

engineers working with orthopedic surgeons and materials scientists. 

Concern for archiving and preserving information is not restricted to scientists and technologists. 

Historians, policy analysts, members of Congress and all in government need to know the basis of 

federal decision-making. They need to know the context and how and why decisions were made. The 

what, when, where, how, and why of events and knowledge are important to understanding human 

achievements and problems and will be important to future generations as they seek to understand our 

history. 

In designing and implementing archiving and preservation systems the government needs to work with 

the Open Archive Initiative61 to ensure participation in setting standards, implementing standards, and 

ensuring interoperability 

The burden of archiving the complete body of federal government information is too great for any 

single agency. Collaboration among agencies, participation of many groups, and cooperation between 

the public and private sectors are required to archive and maintain the government's store of 

information. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) should take the lead in 

forming a collaborative of federal agencies, universities, state governments, and trusted third parties 

such as OCLC, Inc., RLG, and The Internet Archive. The collaborative effort would help ensure that 

all information including agency web sites would be archived, preserved, and be made available when 

needed as well as setting and implementing standards. 

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION 

Transfer of technology and information relies on the ready availability of government sponsored 

research results. Scientific and technical progress and the creation of new knowledge depend on the 

use of existing research and information. The Workshop Report on a Future Information Infrastructure 

for the Physical Sciences stated: 

The government has a responsibility to disseminate the results of federally sponsored 

research as broadly as possible as a public good.62

The government realizes the return on its investment through innovation, invention, and economic 

growth. 

Information and technology transfer occur through technical reports, online collaboration among 

scientists, journal articles, preprints, working papers, and face-to-face meetings. The timely and easy 

transfer of research results increases knowledge, avoids redundancy and wasted effort, and enables the 

transfer of ideas and techniques from one scientific field to another. Timely information and learning 

are building blocks of science and technology and key drivers in innovation and economic growth. 

NTIS serves as a primary central source of scientific and technical reports. NTIS collects, catalogs, 

abstracts, and indexes technical report content and opens access to this information through its 

 

61 http://www.openarchives.org/. 62 Workshop report, op. cit. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-132 

database and distribution of reports. Many agencies do not voluntarily submit their reports to NTIS, 

forcing information seekers to find reports on their own through trial and error searching of agency 

web sites. And even agency web sites often do not contain the documented research results coming 

from contractors. 

Science is becoming both more specialized and more interdisciplinary. Scientists working in a highly 

specialized field usually know each other and share information through e-mail, discussion lists, and 

preprints. Scientists venturing into new fields or interdisciplinary areas cannot rely on their usual 

methods. They need one source that will contain metadata, abstracts, and indexes to all government 

reports with online linkages to the full text. Examples of important interdisciplinary fields include 

nanotechnology, materials science, biotechnology, and biosciences. 

Industry relies on the ready availability of federally funded research reports to discover new 

knowledge, learn new methods, and avoid redundancy. If the report literature is not reviewed, 

companies could spend millions of dollars performing experiments or research already done. Timely 

dissemination of research results also saves companies from investing in unpatentable results. 

The Department of Energy workshop report states, "Our ability to compete is first based on ability to 

know quickly. The value is not in having the knowledge, but in using it."63 Ability to use information 

relies on having quick access to full text and relevant data. 

"Business and industry convert research results into the tools and products we often 

take for granted. It is essential that the linkage from research results and the rate of 

transfer to and from business and industry communities keep pace with the global 

communication processes that are evolving through the use of the Internet."64

The NCLIS Preliminary Assessment of the Proposed Closure of NTIS observed, 

"The service capabilities of NTIS are deteriorating continuously as NTIS employees 

resign, retire, or transfer to other units, often with very serious impacts on their pay, 

careers, families and morale. Private enterprise, students, faculty researchers, 

government, and foreign customers of NTIS products and services are increasingly 

worried as to whether, and how (if at all) they will have access to the results of 

federally-funded R & D in the future."65 

Denial of results of federal R & D could have significant negative impact on science, technology, and 

business. 

It is clear that new ways of disseminating government produced scientific and technical information 

are needed if innovation, scientific and technological progress, and economic growth are to continue. 

A new paradigm should be considered to manage and distribute scientific and technical reports and 

information. This function should be housed in the Executive Branch and be responsible for the 

description of science and technology content with linkages to full text content and data sets. A smart 

portal, a single source, with indexes, abstracts, and metadata to aid the researcher in finding the 

information that is needed. Such a portal with a powerful search engine will increase the probability 

 

63 Ibid. 

64 Ibid. 

65 U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Preliminary Assessment of the Proposed Closure of the 

National Technical Information Service (NTIS): A Report to the President and the Congress, Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, March 2000; http://www.nclis.gov/govt/ntis/presiden.pdf.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-133 

that researchers get the information they need quickly and easily. A powerful search engine, smart 

portal, and linkages to full text will save researcher time and increase productivity. Ensuring that 

government information is appropriately archived and preserved would be part of this effort. Since 

technical reports are "born digital," formatting, abstracting, indexing, and adding to the web would 

cost less for potential audience reached than reproduction in paper or microfilm. A web-based system 

may involve capital investment, but long-run operating costs will be lower and benefits higher. 

An interagency council is required to set standards, share expertise, encourage collaboration, and 

provide for an appropriate infrastructure to serve all agencies involved in the dissemination of 

scientific and technical information. As the Department of Energy Workshop Report determined: 

The overall conclusion of the workshop was an enthusiastic endorsement of a vision 

of national information infrastructure that benefits not just the scientific community. 

but the national good. It could ultimately impact not only research and development 

(R & D), but also education and applications to our everyday lives. It would be a step 

to integrate the whole of science to provide a basis to improve society, the economy 

and the environment.66

Congress should enact legislation that mandates the dissemination of scientific and technical 

information and provide incentives for agencies to cooperate and participate in the dissemination 

program. Incentives include a statement of renewed commitment from the Congress, provision of 

infrastructure, creation of an interagency council to encourage cooperation, collaboration and the 

sharing of expertise. This commitment will recognize the contributions of agencies to increasing 

information and knowledge and increasing the public good. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION 

Information seekers inside and outside government have many challenges. They often are unaware of 

the vast amount and variety of information available from their government. While the public can 

access GPO Access, Fed world, and First Gov, they often remain ignorant of where to find what they 

truly need. 

The goals for a new and reconfigured program of government information dissemination are to 

increase the quantity and quality of government information for the public, enable retrieval of 

information whenever and wherever needed, enhance the probability that an information seeker will 

find desired information, and enable all government agencies to electronically publish data, 

information, and reports. 

To accomplish these goals, we need sustainable, easy to use systems that can ensure the authenticity, 

integrity, and preservation of government information. The necessary infrastructure for an efficient 

federal information distribution program would require appropriate hardware, software, shared 

expertise, administrative support, and standards for electronic publishing, cataloging, metadata, 

abstracting, indexing, and interoperability. 

Under the leadership of the National Archives and Records Administration, the government should 

form a collaboration of federal agencies. The council should also collaborate with universities, state 

governments, and trust third parties such as OCLC Inc., RLG, and The Internet Archive. 

 

66 Workshop Report on a Future Information Infrastructure for the Physical Sciences, op. cit. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-134 

An interagency council should be established to set standards, share expertise, encourage 

collaboration, and provide for an appropriate infrastructure to serve all agencies involved in the 

dissemination of scientific and technical information. The model recommended for the dissemination 

of scientific and technical information can be extended to all government information. Implementation 

of the model will likely require changes in many laws and, most importantly, a commitment to ensure 

that taxpayers have access to information that their government has produced. A smart portal with 

appropriate linkages, infrastructure and financial support would go a long way to creating the needed 

sustainable system for access to all government information for all people. 

As Patricia Wood of the National Partnership for Reinventing Government recently stated, 

"Government has an estimated 20,000 separate homepages and 40 million web pages, 

with common look or structure. Many are organized according to what the agency 

thinks is important—its stove pipe organizations, for example, not by topic. Data and 

activities are duplicated across government agencies. Twelve agencies, for example, 

oversee food safety under the authority of 35 different laws. Dot-gov isn't keeping 

pace with dot-com. Citizens can't find what they do not know to look for."67

Many members of the public rely on librarians in public and academic libraries to help them locate 

information. These librarians and the public will require training in the form of online tutorials and 

hands-on instruction by experts. In committing to provide information to the public the Congress 

should include funds for training the nation's librarians to better serve the public. Training should be 

available to public, academic, school, law, and special librarians. Grants can be made to professional 

associations and universities to develop training courses, modules, materials, and online tutorials. 

Training also needs to be available to government staff in both information technology and 

information competency. 

Partnerships with private industry can increase the availability and the ease of finding government 

information. The private sector (for-profit and not-for-profit) can expand choices for information 

consumers. We need to ensure a robust climate for private sector innovation and value-added services 

by ensuring that private sector institutions receive access to all raw data and information provided by 

agencies to the public. 

Technology, growing awareness of the importance of information and learning, and an increasingly 

computer-aware and Internet-competent society provide an unprecedented opportunity to create an 

information and knowledge rich environment. The time is right for the Congress to make a 

commitment to do whatever has to be done to develop and implement online systems that disseminate, 

archive, and preserve information and benefit all citizens. 

 

67 Ibid. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-135 

PANEL 3, APPENDIX A: MEMBERS OF PANEL 3 

Miriam A. Drake, Panel 3 Chairman, Georgia Institute of Technology 

Prudence Adler, Association of Research Libraries 

Lewis Bellardo, National Archives and Records Administration 

Kevin Donovan, Environmental Protection Agency 

Sharon Hogan, University of Illinois, Chicago 

Diane Nester Kresh, Library of Congress 

Barbie Keiser, Information Resources Management Consultant 

Bernard Margolis, Boston Public Library 

James McGinty, Cambridge Information Group 

Barbara Peterson, 3M Library and Information Services 

Barbara Quint, Searcher Magazine 

Dale Stanley, Pfizer Inc. 

Fred Weingartner, American Library Association 

Freida Weise, University of Maryland 

GladysAnn Wells, State Librarian, Arizona 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-136 

APPENDIX 26. PANEL FOUR: FINAL REPORT ON RENEWED AND 

STRENGTHENED PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE 

SECTORS FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION DISSEMINATION 

This and the other three panel reports were submitted to the U.S. National 

Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) as part of the assessment. 

However, the opinions are those of the panel members, not necessarily those of the 

Commission. Any panel recommendations that the Commission has accepted are 

reflected in the Commission's own recommendations in A Comprehensive Assessment 

of Public Information Resources, Volume 1. 

REPORT OF ADVISORY PANEL FOUR 

PUBLIC-PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS 

CONTENTS68

Overview of Study Background, Panel's Purpose and Issues Identified 

Background 

Panel's Purpose 

Critical Issues and Working Panel Reports 

Working Group 1—Preservation & Permanent Access 

General Discussion 

Recommendations of Working Group 1 

Working Group 2—Authentication 

General Discussion 

Recommendations of Working Group 2 

Working Group 3—Finding Information 

General Discussion 

Recommendations of Working Group 3 

Working Group 4—User Assistance 

General Discussion 

Recommendations of Working Group 4 

Working Group 5—Channels of Distribution 

General Discussion 

Recommendations of Working Group 5 

Common Themes/Concerns of the Working Groups 

Definitions of Government/Public Information 

Review of NCLIS Principles 

Recommendations

Panel 4, Appendix A. Provisions from the U.S. Code, Title 44, Section 3506(d) 

Panel 4, Appendix B. Selected Statutory Provisions from the U.S. Code, Title 44, Chapters 17 and 19 

Panel 4, Appendix C. Members of Panel 4 

 

68 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen26.pdf. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-137 

OVERVIEW OF STUDY BACKGROUND, PANEL'S PURPOSE AND ISSUES IDENTIFIED 

Background

On June 12, 2000, Senator John McCain, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science 

and Transportation, requested that the United States Commission on Libraries and Information 

Science ("NCLIS"), " undertake a review of the reforms necessary for the federal government's 

information dissemination practices. The Senator requested specifically that: 

At a minimum, this review should include assessments of the need for: 

1) proposing new or revised laws, rules, regulations, missions, and policies; 

2) modernizing organization structures and functions so as to reflect greater emphasis 

on electronic information planning, management, and control capabilities, and the 

need to consolidate, streamline, and simplify missions and functions to avoid or 

minimize unnecessary overlap and duplication; 

3) revoking NTIS self-sufficiency requirement;69 and 

4) strengthening other key components of the overall federal information 

dissemination infrastructure. 

Following Senator McCain's request, NCLIS established four Advisory Panels, including Panel 4—

Public-Private Sector Partnerships (Panel "4")—to study redefining public-private sector roles, 

partnerships, and initiatives vis-à-vis public access to, and dissemination of, government information, 

given the advent of the World Wide Web, the Internet, and associated technological changes that are 

driving the Information Age. 

Panel's Purpose

During its first meeting, Panel 4 members established the general scope of the inquiry, taking special 

note of both the requests made by Senator McCain and the principles and recommendations from the 

1982 NCLIS Report Public Sector/Private Sector Interaction in Providing Information Services

("1982 Report")70 that would provide valuable background. As part of its charge, the Panel determined 

that it would review the principles and recommendations contained in that report. The specific focus of 

the Panel is how development of the World Wide Web ("WWW"), Internet, and associated 

technologies have affected, and will continue to affect, open access to Federal government 

information71 and the roles of the public and private sectors72 in providing and maintaining access. The 

Panel decided against limiting the scope of its deliberations solely to electronic information, 

recognizing that print formats are so often the basis for later electronic documents. Panel members 

also agreed to consider topics such as copyright or pricing of government documents, if they would be 

relevant to its deliberations as they relate to the critical issues identified. 

 

69 The specific issue of the National Technical Information Service business model for the Information Age is to be addressed 

by Advisory Panel 1. 

70 U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Public Sector/Private Sector Interaction in Providing 

Information Services, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1982. The 2000 edition of Public Sector/Private Sector 

Interaction in Providing Information Services is available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/publpriv.html; principles: page 

33 and following, recommendations: page 47 and following. 

71 As in the 1982 Report, Panel 4 considers government information to include information under the auspices of all three 

branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial. The panel agreed, however, that it would not address issues 

involving state or local government information policies. 

72 The 1982 Report defined private sector "...to include private enterprise, for-profit and not-for-profit, as well as 

organizations such as professional societies and trade associations, hybrids that are joint government/private enterprise, and 

organizations such as privately supported libraries and universities (even though they may be subsidized by public funds)." 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-138 

Later in the Panel's deliberations, some Panel members felt that the report should note the existence of 

varying statutory and regulatory definitions of government information, particularly in relation to 

current problems regarding agencies' complying with dissemination and access requirements. 

Although there was disagreement among Panel members as to whether the Panel's report should 

recommend a new definition, it was agreed that a review and some analysis was warranted. 

CRITICAL ISSUES AND WORKING PANEL REPORTS 

Panel 4 defined "critical issues" to be those that, if left unresolved, could deny the American public 

open, timely and useful access to Federal government information. Five such issues were identified: 

(1) Preservation & Permanent Access; (2) Authentication; (3) Finding Information; (4) User 

Assistance and (5) Channels of Distribution. In each subject area, the Panel Chair established Working 

Groups tasked to identify issues and assess current government activities, including examples of 

current policies and practices that have either enhanced or inhibited the roles of the public and private 

sectors in meeting the American public's need and desire for access to Federal government 

information. 

Working Group 1—Preservation & Permanent Access

General Discussion 

The use of online systems for dissemination and access to Federal government information products 

and services has expanded access greatly, but at the same time has created new challenges, particularly 

in the areas of preservation and long-term access to information in a potentially transitory format. In 

the print world, the Federal government fulfilled its responsibility to assure permanent public access 

largely through the regional depository libraries. Those libraries have had a legislative mandate to 

"retain at least one copy of all government publications in printed or micro facsimile form, (except 

those authorized to be discarded by he Superintendent of Documents)...."73 In the transition from a 

print to an electronic depository program, the responsibility for permanent public access shifts back to 

the government (GPO, agencies, and partners), since there is no equivalent responsibility for regional 

depository libraries to provide permanent public access to electronic government information. In 

fulfilling this mission, GPO relies heavily on the principles enunciated in its 1996 Study to Identify 

Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library 

Program:

 74

• Principle 1. The public has the right of access to government information. 

• Principle 2. The government has an obligation to disseminate and provide broad public access to 

its information. 

• Principle 3. The government has an obligation to guarantee the authenticity and integrity of its 

information. 

• Principle 4. The government has an obligation to preserve its information. 

 

73 44 U.S.C. 1912. 

74 U.S. Government Printing Office, Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic 

Federal Depository Library Program; Report to the Congress (GPO Publication 500.11), Washington, DC: Government 

Printing Office, 1996; http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/study/studyhtm.html. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-139 

• Principle 5. Government information created or compiled by government employees or at 

government expense should remain in the public domain.75 

The government currently has multiple programs and channels for dissemination and access to 

tangible and electronic government information products and services, but the systems are not 

coordinated to guarantee comprehensive coverage and ready access or retrieval for current electronic 

information products, much less long term/permanent public access. The National Archives and 

Records Administration ("NARA") has responsibility for the retention and preservation of the records 

of government, but not necessarily for all publications of the Federal government.76 GPO distributes 

tangible publications to depository libraries for current and permanent access in decentralized 

locations around the country, and provides cataloging and locator services for tangible and online 

Federal government information products and services. In addition, GPO Access provides a number of 

electronic publications from all three branches of government to the public.77 GPO also offers many 

high-interest federal government print and CD-ROM publications for sale on a cost recovery basis. 

NTIS collects scientific and technical information ("STI") for their permanent collection and makes 

copies available for sale in multiple formats. The NTIS catalog and index are only available to the 

public on a fee basis and most of the STI reports included in the NTIS clearinghouse are not provided 

to the FDLP for no-fee public access.78 In addition, a number of agencies also sponsor subject-oriented 

information clearinghouses for material in tangible and electronic formats in no-fee or cost recovery 

programs (DTIC, ERIC, MEDLINE, NCJRS, etc.). In addition, many agencies operate public 

information centers, public reading rooms, or specialized depository programs (such as the Census 

Bureau, PTO, etc.). 

As a rule, however, agencies are focused on their missions, which may or may not emphasize 

provision of current or long-term broad public access to their information products or services. They 

are producing an increasing volume of their information products and services on a decentralized, 

local basis through the Internet. Public access to these web-based information products and services 

may be limited, since they are not consistently included in the various existing government programs 

that foster information dissemination or information access, such as GPO Access or NTIS. Moreover, 

there are no agreed-upon standards used by Federal agencies to produce tangible or online electronic 

products. The lack of standards causes problems for current access, as well as for preservation and 

permanent public access. Likewise, there are no coordinated programs or standards for permanent 

access to or preservation of tangible or online electronic media across all branches of government. 

The private sector role in adding value to government information to create new products and services 

fulfills the needs of those citizens who are willing and financially able to pay for these enhancements 

or who wish to obtain access to government information from sources other than the government 

itself. Private sector organizations, both for-profit and non-profit, play an essential, complementary 

role in making optimum use of government information. They may repackage the information in 

value-added products, and provide value-added dissemination to reach wider audiences. By 

 

75 In discussing agency information activities, Working Group 1 noted that "[T]he government information in such products 

and services is in the public domain, available for unrestricted use by the public or private and non-profit sectors, except to

the extent that any proprietary, copyrighted material is included." See: "Report of Working Group on Preservation and 

Permanent Public Access Issues," p. 7. 

76 NARA is engaged currently in promising research to preserve and provide permanent public access to electronic records. 

77 GPO assumes responsibility for keeping these titles available for long-term public access. In addition, while GPO Access 

points to electronic publications on agency web sites, GPO has no control over how long the information will be maintained 

electronically by the agency. GPO has initiated a digital archive of copies of these items on a pilot basis and has entered into 

partnership agreements with some agencies to ensure permanent public access. 

78 In January 1999, NTIS initiated a pilot project with the Federal Depository Library Program was initiated to provide access 

for 22 FDLP libraries to new titles added to the NTIS collection in digital format from October 1997 to the present. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-140 

incorporating the information in supplemental catalogs and indexes, they expand use. In some cases, 

through public-private sector joint partnerships, they assist in the publication of information products 

that may otherwise not have been published. In the best models of such public-private sector 

partnership programs, the products are included in GPO'S cataloging services and the publications are 

provided to the FDLP for some limited no-fee public access to complement the sales access. 

Moreover, the private sector plays an important role in the development of new technology and new 

systems for information publication, access and retrieval—functions that enhance government 

programs. It is very likely that when there is market demand, value-added private-sector government 

information products and services will be maintained for permanent public access. Once the economic 

motive disappears, the future access to such products and services is less certain. 

The American public's access needs have traditionally been best served through multiple, nonexclusive programs/channels of public and private sector information dissemination and information 

access to be available to the widest possible public audience. Government products and services have 

been, and should continue to be, equally and widely available and readily accessible to all members of 

the public. In the electronic world, it is equally important that government assure their availability on a 

timely current, contemporary basis, as well as on a permanent basis for reference and historical 

research. 

Recommendations of Working Group 1 

It is the Federal government's responsibility to assure permanent public access to government 

information. Given today's current situation, the Working Group on Permanent Public Access 

recommended the following specific actions: 

• Federal government's assuming responsibility for funding programs to maintain online electronic 

information products and services for permanent public access. 

• Developing a clear and simple system for Federal agencies to submit information products and 

services to the various government programs geared toward information dissemination and public 

access. 

• Improving program regulation, guidance and standards for information producing agencies in the 

production of tangible electronic products and online resources, including necessary metadata, 

public access and preservation. 

• Establishing better communication and cooperation among information dissemination and 

information access programs of the Federal government, as well as libraries and the private sector 

(non-profit and for-profit organizations), to reduce the confusion as to the location of needed 

information. 

• Improved public education and outreach programs focusing on the various methods to identify and 

retrieve government information products and services. 

• Creating sources for technical, expert advice for Federal agencies on data warehousing, data 

management, standards, etc. 

• Conducting more research on preservation of forms, formats, and contents of electronic 

government information products and services. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-141 

Working Group 2—Authentication

General Discussion 

Information in electronic formats differs from information in traditional formats in several ways. First, 

it may have no counterpart in print or recorded formats; having been created, stored, disseminated and 

archived electronically. Secondly, its own format may differ significantly from more traditional 

materials, and increasingly, multiple formats are being incorporated into one document. An electronic 

document does not automatically carry a seal or stamp that denotes its point of origination and 

validity, and an electronic document can be copied and disseminated endlessly with changes being 

made easily. 

Works of the U.S. government are generally not protected by Federal copyright law.79 Government 

information has always been accessible to the American public, including the private sector and 

libraries that further disseminate the information. Moreover, because of the First Amendment and 

other long-standing principles of our democratic society, government has not and should not control 

further use or dissemination of government information, including alteration of a document, product or 

service once distributed generally to the public. Nevertheless, when the public accesses government 

information directly from the government, it is crucial that users know the information is authentic. 

To date, the most common means to guarantee such assurance has been reliance on source credibility. 

Increasing electronic dissemination of information by Federal government agencies, however, 

highlights the need for agencies to take added measures to assure the public that specific 

information—especially that contained on government websites—has not only been created, validated, 

and initially provided by the Federal government but to understand which information carries the 

imprimatur of an official agency promulgation. The growing decentralization of agency electronic 

information dissemination activities, coupled with the ease of tampering or misrepresenting digital 

records, are likely to increase the focus on authentication procedures in the near future. 

Despite the lack of agencies' applying sophisticated digital watermarking or authentication technology, 

public concerns that information provided by government in electronic formats may not be authentic 

have been kept relatively minimal. The American public continues to rely on a trusted source for such 

information, e.g. an established agency web site. 

The Federal government must assume the primary role of assuring authenticity. Several challenges 

must be overcome, however. First, agencies have no history of or experience in attempting to ensure 

authentication of electronic information. Second, government information is produced by so many 

agencies in all three branches of government that any attempt at consistent application of standards or 

new technologies to provide a digital watermark or other types of digital rights management controls 

is almost impossible—not to mention the threat that employing such technologies may likely interfere 

with unrestricted access to and re-dissemination of government information. Third, technology that 

would provide some sort of automatic electronic authentication is still in the developmental stages. 

Applying such technologies would be costly or technologically challenging—both for government and 

the public. 

As we advance further into era of e-government, with its concomitant and significantly increased 

public need to obtain government information electronically, concerns about what constitutes 

authentic government information provided Federal agencies will also grow. If a technological 

solution is chosen, the greatest challenge will be to ensure that the public has the means by which to 

 

79 17 U.S.C. 105. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-142 

access the information with minimal encumbrance, so that there is no threat to the unfettered flow of 

government information. 

Recommendations of Working Group 2 

• The Federal government must assume the primary role of ensuring the authenticity of electronic 

Federal government information, particularly that offered through agency websites. 

• Federal government agencies should initiate procedures to remain informed of developing 

technologies that will authenticate government information provided electronically by agencies. 

• Should new laws or regulations mandating increased technological protections be promulgated, 

they must respect both the potential growth and limitations of technology. Additionally, it is 

important that new laws or regulation be technology neutral and market-driven. 

• Agencies should establish procedures by which there is control over what is posted on websites 

and clear indication whether government information available electronically represents and 

official opinion or promulgation of any particular agency.

• The Federal government should increase security measures to assure that government sites do not 

fall prey to manipulation or alteration of electronic government information provided directly to 

the public. 

• The legal and regulatory framework surrounding authentication of digital government information 

must continue to provide the public and private sectors, as well as not-for-profit information users 

and disseminators, the opportunity to maximize opportunities for further dissemination and 

broader access to electronic government information.

Working Group 3—Finding Information

General Discussion 

The question of whether electronic information can be located without cataloging, indexing, or 

offering access at the document level is an important consideration, since it directly relates to the costs 

associated with providing public access to government information... 

Federal agencies should not be expected to provide an equal level of access to every type of 

information—especially if providing this information without adequate summarizing, abstracting and 

indexing/metadata, created at considerable cost, means that it is only added to a mountain of digital 

objects that users will have to wade through. The private sector and libraries have traditionally filled 

an important role in adding value to government information by cataloging, abstracting and indexing, 

and there is little evidence to suggest that their ability to serve the public through such services has 

become obsolete. Government should be aware of the efforts and associated costs required to 

effectively abstract and index information. In some cases, government may find it more beneficial to 

the public to partner with the private sector and libraries to accomplish the task. Alternatively, 

government can determine when it is more appropriate to allow the private sector and libraries to 

assume primary responsibility for meeting public demands for increased search and retrieval 

functionality. 

Problem areas include: 

If the Federal government continues to adopt a distributed approach to government information—i.e., 

each agency develops a website for the distribution of its own information products and services—
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-143 

then the public, especially those with scant knowledge of the structure of the Federal government, will 

face difficulties in finding government information at the source. The first challenge for government, 

then, is to assure that the public can identify which agency might hold the information desired. The 

second challenge becomes navigating the agency's website, which can vary widely in complexity and 

user friendliness. To navigate them often requires an intimate knowledge of not only the agency's 

structure but it's internal terminology. It can be very difficult to find a specific item, even if the user 

knows its name. It should be noted, however, that GPO Access's cataloging and locator services and 

FirstGov, under the authority of the General Services Administration ("GSA") do provide access to 

centralized search capabilities that allow users to retrieve information from a broad array of agencies 

and branches of government. 

Although it was presumed in the early days of the WWW that full-text search engines and relevance 

ranking algorithms would provide adequate search results, the providers of commercial search engines 

on the Internet quickly realized that this was not true. Today's WWW searching is far superior to 

performance just a few years ago, but this is not entirely due to technological improvements, it is also 

very much related to human intervention (in the form of librarians visiting and evaluating websites 

before delivering them as answers to the searcher's question); the adoption of classification 

methodologies; and further development of controlled vocabularies (thesauruses or taxonomies) that 

have long been used in the construction of bibliographic databases. 

There is currently much discussion about the need for developing and deploying "metadata" or 

indexing systems to aid in the retrieval of documents, data sets, and other digital objects.80 If Federal 

government agencies do not go to the effort of adding metadata/indexing terms to the digital objects 

they are providing on the WWW, neither the Internet search engines nor agency/interagency search 

engines can retrieve them in a reliable or consistent way or rank them for the user. The result of 

skipping the indexing step is a bad experience for most users. 

The more information that becomes available in electronic form, the more necessary it is to provide 

would-be users of the information with a summary of the contents to facilitate indexing and retrieval. 

Of the technologies available today, automatic summarization programs generally extract only the first 

few lines of text as the summary. This method works if the author of the document has summarized its 

findings in the first few lines. Too frequently, however, the first few lines tell the user nothing about 

the contents of the document. This exacerbates the ability of the public to effectively sort through an 

answer set—one that may include hundreds of possible "hits"—to find the information sought. In 

short, summarizing or abstracting information has classically been done by humans, and often at great 

expense. That situation is likely to continue into the foreseeable future. 

The crucial question to address is whether the government can and should invest the resources 

required to add metadata/indexing functionalities to all Federal government information or whether 

priorities, primarily the need of the American public to gain access, should be established as to which 

information requires such detailed handling. 

Recommendations of Working Group 3 

• The Federal government should continuously review and distinguish among the types of 

information produced by Federal agencies and the uses for which these information types are 

employed, in order to prioritize which types of information made available receive which levels of 

 

80 For example, the National Federation of Abstracting and Indexing Services (NFAIS) sponsored, under an agreement with 

the U.S. Geological Survey, a conference on this subject in 1997 and will sponsor another in 2001. In the process of 

organizing these conferences NFAIS discovered hundreds of government agencies working on metadata projects. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-144 

indexing/metadata.81 Key factors should be the general usefulness of the information, the public 

demand for the information, and the national priority for its dissemination. 

• The Federal government should develop strategies for investing in system improvements and 

encouraging cooperation among agencies in areas where the public need for detailed access is 

greatest. Among the considerations should be the degree to which that need is currently being 

addressed by the private sector and libraries. 

• Congress should continue to authorize and fund specific central agencies to focus on information 

and information technologies that serve priority purposes of the Federal government. 

• Federal agencies should be encouraged to follow the provisions of existing government 

information policy guidelines and laws. Congress should adopt enforcement provisions to assure 

that agencies are in compliance. 

• Federal agencies should continue to form partnerships with private sector organizations so that the 

cost of the investment can be shared and the free-enterprise system can continue to bring 

innovation and expertise to the process, provided that federal government information remains 

free of copyright and there is unfettered public access. 

Working Group 4—User Assistance

General Discussion 

User assistance is of critical importance in facilitating use of electronic information. Technology 

continues to enhance the means of providing huge amounts of information in electronic formats—

whether on disk, CD-ROM or directly through the WWW and the Internet. As the number of resources 

grows, users are in greater need of tools to help identify both sources of information and data sets—

critical components of those information sources—in order to meet their specific needs. 

There are several means by which users can gain assistance: (1) personal interface, e.g. in non-profit 

and corporate libraries or through Federal agency user support hotlines; (2) summary source 

information, provided most commonly in any number of formats as of indices and abstracts of 

information sources, summarizing both general information sources, as well as specific data sets 

within general sources; (3) search engines/locator services, used primarily to locate general 

information resources online effectively and quickly; and (4) search and retrieval technologies, 

normally specialized software delivered as part of the information product or service and used 

primarily to locate specific data or data sets once access to a digital information source is achieved. 

Several other issues affect the provision of assistance to users. Among the most critical of these—

regardless of whether assistance is provided by government, the private sector or libraries—are (1) 

cost to both the provider and members of the public; (2) quality, often tied directly to the cost of 

providing the assistance; and (3) innovation, i.e. developing, testing and providing new means of 

obtaining and using information sources or data sets to meet the public demand 

Two major problem areas exist in user assistance issues related to government information, regardless 

of the branch of government involved. The first is a lack of widespread, public knowledge about what 

information sources are available, particularly online sources supplied directly by government. The 

second is the inability to search and retrieve specific data sets once an information source has been 

identified. 

 

81 For example, there is a clear difference between the level of indexing required for online government information products 

and internal records of agencies, such as email and memorandums. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-145 

The private sector and the library community have traditionally provided the bulk of user assistance 

functionalities, particularly in the print environment and at the beginning of the transition to electronic 

data delivery. More recently, the advent of GPO Access, NTIS' FedWorld, and the GSA FirstGov 

website demonstrate that the Federal government is now entering this field of activity with enhanced 

indexing capabilities and support functions enabled by new technology. 

Regardless of whether user assistance is provided by the public or the private sector, however, the 

public often experiences mixed results. In terms of private sector WWW and Internet locator and 

search engine services, many such providers rank websites based on special or exclusive—and 

sometimes economic—agreements with website purveyors or on how frequently websites are 

requested and successfully found by users. Government agencies are unlikely to enter—and under 44 

U.S.C. 3506(d), executive branch agencies are statutorily prohibited from entering—into special 

agreements with the private sector. More importantly, if the public is not aware that an agency has 

placed a site on the web or added new information sources to the site, it is unlikely that it will be 

ranked highly on a private sector service due to a large number of hits. 

Problems also exist in regard to government locator services. GPO Access, for example, contains a 

broad array of links to federal government information. Yet in many instances, GPO must on its own 

seek out these online resources in order to assure that the general public is aware of them. Similar 

problems plague the Library of Congress' Thomas system in its collection of congressional 

information, and NTIS' FedWorld in its efforts to collect federal scientific and technical information. 

The judicial branch has proven particularly problematic in terms of providing locator services of even 

the most basic nature. This is due primarily to the lack of a defined and implemented program for 

posting opinions and court decisions online. 

Specialized government search and locator services run by private or non-profit sector entities have 

even greater difficulty in keeping up with new federal information sources provided online. Unlike the 

Government Printing Office or the Library of Congress, private sector enjoys no special relationship, 

nor has it been able to rely on a legal or regulatory mandates, to assure that they are kept informed of 

new government information services. Two areas of user assistance in which the private sector tends 

to excel for those who purchase the services are in providing personal interfaces and in maintaining 

quality search and retrieval mechanisms. They have likewise been more effective in developing and 

providing summary source information, including special indexing and abstracting services. 

The Federal government has also been somewhat successful in the provision of search and retrieval 

capabilities to assist users once they have gained access to a website. However, depending on how the 

agency has organized the information provided through the website, the public can sometimes 

encounter difficulties in locating specific data—unless they are already well-versed in the technologies 

of the web or unless they have been able to identify specific parameters to help narrow their search 

(e.g., the date of a notice; the precise name or public law number of a statute or court decision; or the 

date or number of a regulation implementing a statute). 

The inevitable limitations on availability of government resources, however, demand that the 

government should undertake only the most necessary user assistance activities and need not duplicate 

or adopt all types of services that private sector and library providers offer to their customers and 

patrons. Cost and unmet public needs will always be major factors in the evaluation by government 

agencies of what user assistance services to provide. In addition, although the government has a 

general mandate primary responsibility to make widely available the information it creates and 

maintains, it also has a responsibility to encourage the development of alternative sources for 

government information, including online sources—whether private or non-profit in origin. Therefore, 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-146 

regardless of what services it develops, government must make them available to the public at large—

including private and non-profit sector providers—at little or no cost. 

Recommendations of Working Group 4 

• The Federal government must take more positive steps to establish its own locator and search 

engine capabilities. Centralized authority for government dissemination activities should be 

established within each branch of government. Regardless of whether such central authorities are 

established, agencies across all three branches of government should cooperate to set standards for 

agencies, particularly in the areas of locator and search engine functionality and search and 

retrieval technologies. 

• Guidelines for how Federal Government websites are organized, the search and retrieval 

mechanisms used by those sites, and links to other sources should be standardized, to the extent 

possible given issues involving constitutional separation of powers. Consistency in locator service 

and search and retrieval functionalities within each branch may best be achieved by establishing 

some sort of central coordinating or oversight body. 

• In terms of specific statutory reforms, the Working Group recommends: 

• Reforming Title 44 by strengthening or adding enforcement provisions to assure agency 

compliance with dissemination and access activities, including: (1) the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 ("PRA")—particularly those provisions contained in 44 U.S.C. 3506(d) and the legislative 

history accompanying them; and (2) provisions governing the indexing of government documents 

(44 U.S.C. 1710 & 1711) and the depository library program (44 U.S.C. 1902 & 1903). In 

addition, provisions of 44 U.S.C. 3506(d) should be extended to apply to the legislative and 

judicial branches of government as well. 

Some issues that need to be addressed in regard to statutory reform include: 

a. Any constitutional issues that must be considered. 

b. Ability of the private sector and libraries to either gain or be able to maintain access to 

information from all branches of government to assist the American public in finding and using 

information sources. 

Working Group 5—Channels of Distribution

General Discussion 

Changes in technology have resulted in extraordinary changes in how information is created, stored, 

indexed, accessed, and thought about. The Federal government provides increasing amounts of 

information in electronic formats—particularly the WWW and the Internet. As with all government 

information activities, establishing distribution channels and maintaining access to them should have 

as its primary focus meeting the needs of the American public, including the private sector and 

libraries that act as further distribution channels. 

Currently, the laws for the provision of electronic information to programs such as the FDLP or NTIS, 

or even NARA, are honored more in the breech than in fact. There are no standards governing the 

manner in which even Federal executive branch agencies select and maintain distribution channels for 

the information they provide electronically. The lack of uniform means of dissemination—and 

therefore easily recognizable and useable means of access for the public—is also applicable to 

legislative and judicial branch activities. Likewise, few if any mechanisms are in place to encourage 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-147 

Federal government agencies to assess public needs and then adjust their policies and practices to meet 

those needs in the face of limited resources. 

Many programs do exist that serve as portals for a wide variety of government information. GPO 

Access, NTIS FedWorld and the GSA FirstGov project are perhaps the most familiar examples of 

these types of portal activities undertaken by the Federal government. However, as has been noted by 

other Working Groups, none of these websites can be considered comprehensive. The public—

including re-disseminators of government information—must often access several Federal government 

websites to find the information they seek. 

Some fundamental issues to be considered are: (1) whether the Federal government should create and 

maintain one central point of access for all government information; (2) how a central access point 

would facilitate or hinder the ability of the American public to find and use government information 

more efficiently; and (3) whether the government should undertake development of new distribution 

channels independently, in partnership with the private sector and libraries, or leave such activity 

generally to the private sector and libraries. 

Recommendations of Working Group 5 

• Coordination among Federal agency distribution channels for government information is 

necessary. In order to encourage this development, it may be necessary for Congress to statutorily 

mandate it. 

• It is unlikely that any one channel of distribution can meet the American public's need and desire 

to find and use government information efficiently and effectively. Therefore, agencies should 

work together, and cooperate across the three branches of government, to establish a number of 

central and specialized distribution channels or portals. Agencies should also work together to 

facilitate both centralized and inter-agency distribution channels. 

• Federal agencies should cooperate with private sector and library providers to enhance access 

points for the American public, including consideration of non-exclusive partnerships with private 

sector and library providers to create and maintain distribution channels. 

• Regardless of how many channels are established and what government information is provided 

through them, the government must continue to assure that access to those channels remains 

unrestricted, as well as assuring that further dissemination through the channels is available to the 

American public, including private sector and library organizations. 

COMMON THEMES/CONCERNS OF THE WORKING GROUPS 

Not all members of Panel 4 agree on specific recommendations of each Working Group. Nevertheless, 

there is some agreement on certain common themes, concerns and principles that arise from the 

reports and subsequent discussions of those reports among Panel members. Among the most prevalent 

of those are: 

• The growing trend among Federal government agencies in all three branches of government to 

provide Federal government information in electronic formats should be encouraged. 

• There does appear to be a lack of understanding among Federal government agencies of the 

impact of this development on the traditional means of disseminating and guaranteeing access to 

such information, including the roles played by libraries and the private sector. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-148 

• Other than Chapters 17 and 19 of Title 44, there is an absence of statutes or regulations providing 

guidance, particularly to legislative and judicial branch agencies, on policies governing 

dissemination of and access to government information. 

• There is a lack of coordination or direction among agencies in all three branches of government 

regarding policies and procedures for disseminating and maintaining access to government 

information sources. 

• There is a failure of federal executive branch agencies to adhere to existing laws and regulations 

governing their information dissemination activities. 

DEFINITIONS OF GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC INFORMATION 

Many members of Panel 4 expressed serious concerns about the lack of uniformity in the definition of 

government information to be disseminated or accessible under U.S. law and regulation. The difficulty 

of trying to define government information was evident already at the time of 1982 Report, prior to the 

advent of the WWW and the Internet: 

The term "information" was repeatedly used in the Task Force discussed [sic], but it 

was impossible to arrive at an agreed upon definition. It appeared and was generally 

understood to refer to the content or symbolic substance of a communication, as 

separate from the physical form in which the communication occurred. But despite the 

appearance of a general understanding of the term, it simply eluded specific 

definition.82

Nevertheless, any one statute's or regulation's definition of government information (also sometimes 

referred to as "public information") affects substantially the roles of both the public and private sectors 

in providing access to that information. Panel 4 therefore believes it worthwhile to review some of 

more commonly used definitions. 

The two broadest definitions are to be found in the preamble to the NCLIS Principles of Public 

Information and in the provisions of Title 44 of the U.S. Code. The NCLIS preamble reads as follows:

We define public information as information created, compiled and/or maintained by 

the Federal Government. We assert that public information is information owned by 

the people, held in trust by their government, and should be available to the people 

except where restricted by law. 

Chapter 19 of Title 44, dealing with the GPO's Federal Depository Library Program, states simply that 

"'[g]overnment publication' as used in this chapter, means informational matter which is published as 

an individual document at Government expense, or as required by law,"83 and that "[g]overnment 

publications, except those determined by their issuing components to be required for official use only 

or for strictly administrative or operational purposes which have no public interest or educational 

value and publications classified for reasons of national security shall be made available ... for public 

information."84 Chapter 34 of Title 44—the PRA—also supplies a very broad definition: "the term 

 

82 Public Sector/Private Sector Interaction in Providing Information Services, 2000 edition, page 81. 83 44 U.S.C 1901. 

84 44 U.S.C. 1902. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-149 

'public information' means any information, regardless of form or format, that an agency discloses, 

disseminates, or makes available to the public."85 

In terms of existing Federal government regulations, Circular A-130, promulgated by the Office of 

Management and Budget, governing executive branch agency information dissemination practices, 

provides the following definition of government information: 

a. The term "government information" means information created, collected, processed, 

disseminated, or disposed of by or for the Federal Government. 

b. The term "government publication" means information which is published as an individual 

document at government expense, or as required by law. (44 U.S.C. 1901). 

c. The term "information" means any communication or representation of knowledge such as facts, 

data, or opinions in any medium or form, including textual, numerical, graphic, cartographic, 

narrative, or audiovisual forms. 

d. The term "information dissemination product" means any book, paper, map, machine-readable 

material, audiovisual production, or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or 

characteristic, disseminated by an agency to the public.86

The focus of Panel 4's discussions was the tangible or electronic information products distributed or 

readily accessible to the public. Nevertheless, the Panel recognized that records of government 

accessible under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") also can affect further dissemination and 

access, since once made available, this information can be redisseminated without restriction. Federal 

government executive branch information subject to disclosure under FOIA is defined as follows: 

Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public 

inspection and copying 

(A) final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as 

orders, made in the adjudication of cases; 

(B) those statements of policy and interpretations which have been adopted by 

the agency and are not published in the Federal Register; 

(C) administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member 

of the public; 

(D) copies of all records, regardless of form or format, which have been 

released to any person under paragraph (3) and which, because of the nature 

of their subject matter, the agency determines have become or are likely to 

become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records; 

and 

(E) a general index of the records referred to under subparagraph (D).87

Nevertheless, FOIA recognizes that agencies can withhold certain types of information in their 

possession. As explained in the House Report accompanying the Electronic Freedom of Information 

Amendments of 1996: 

 

85 44 U.S.C. 3502(12). 

86 OMB Circular A-130, Transmittal Memorandum 3 (February 8, 1996). OMB makes special note that even these general 

governing definitions are subject to modification by other existing law, including FOIA, the Privacy Act of 1974 and 

"appropriate national security directives." It is also important to note that the OMB Circular A-130 definitions are the most 

recently promulgated and were issued after broad dissemination of various drafts and receipt of public comments from the 

American public, including a wide variety of private sector and library providers of government information. 

87 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2). 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-150 

The nine exemption categories are listed below: 

• Information that is classified for national defense or foreign policy purposes; 

• Information that relates solely to an agency's internal personnel rules and practices; 

• Information that has been clearly exempted under other laws. 

• Confidential business information, such as trade secrets; 

• Internal government deliberative communications about a decision before an 

announcement; 

• Information about an individual that, if disclosed, would cause a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy; 

• Law enforcement records, particularly of ongoing investigations; 

• Information concerning bank supervision; 

• Geological and geophysical information, such as maps.88

Time limitations have not provided Panel 4 an opportunity to fully review these statutory and 

regulatory definitions of government or public information, other than to note their existence and 

variances. It may not be possible to craft one definition for all government information dissemination 

and access issues. Indeed, the 1982 Report acknowledged as much.89 

Nevertheless, it may be worth more study to determine whether it is necessary to establish a new, 

uniform definition to guide Federal government agencies in all branches of government, so that they 

can better determine priorities for disseminating the broad array of information under their control. 

REVIEW OF NCLIS PRINCIPLES

Panel 4 remained cognizant of the 1982 Report, and some Panel members felt that this report should 

highlight those principles, as well as the summary of the roles played by the government, the private 

sector and the libraries in assuring broad public access to government information. Others felt that 

similar, subsequent statements by NCLIS and other organizations were deserving of note, as well. The 

limited time available to the Panel precluded thorough discussion and consideration of these 

principles, although there was general recognition that the government has a fundamental 

responsibility for dissemination of and access to government information in the first instance, 

supplemented by private sector value added dissemination and access. 

The 1982 Report enunciated six fundamental principles: 

• Principle 1. The Federal government should take a leadership role in creating a framework which 

would facilitate the development and foster the use of information products and services. 

• Principle 2. The Federal government should establish and enforce policies and procedures that 

encourage, and do not discourage, investment by the private sector in the development and use of 

information products and services.

 

88 House Report 104-795, 2nd Session, 104th Congress, citing provisions of 5 U.S.C. §552(b). 89 Public Sector/Private Sector Interaction in Providing Information Services, 2000 edition, page 33 and following. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-151 

• Principle 3. The Federal government should not provide information products and services in 

commerce except when there are compelling reasons to do so, and then only when it protects the 

private sector's every opportunity to assume the function(s) commercially. 

• Principle 4. The Federal government, when it uses, reproduces, or distributes information 

available from the private sector as part of an information resource, product, or service, must 

assure that the property rights of the private sector sources are adequately protected. 

• Principle 5. The Federal government should make governmentally distributable information 

openly available in readily reproducible form, without any constraints on subsequent use. 

• Principle 6. The Federal government should set pricing policies for distributing information 

products and services that reflect the true cost of access and/or reproduction, any specific prices 

to be subject to review by an independent authority. 

In terms of the roles of the three primary sectors involved in disseminating Federal government 

information, the 1982 Report stated the following:90

Role of Private Enterprise. 

The kinds of things that the private sector can do most effectively are those which 

respond most directly and immediately to the needs of the marketplace and thus to the 

consumer: 

• Marketing and active distribution 

• Re-packaging to meet specific needs 

• Providing speed and flexibility of response 

• Reacting to new situations with minimal delay 

• Anticipating and assessing potential needs 

• Creating new information products and services 

• Injecting private investment funds to meet the opportunities for growth.... 

Role of Libraries. 

The kinds of things that libraries can provide, because of their nature and the history 

of their development, are the following: 

• Assure the preservation of the record 

• Provide points of access to information resources, products, and services 

• Provide the "safety valve" for information access for society, especially so that "ability to 

pay" does not prevent persons from getting access to information they need 

• Provide means for distribution, on a less active basis than would be provided by the 

entrepreneur 

• Provide the staff for general information service, in contrast to the specialized 

information service provided by the entrepreneur.... 

Role of Government. 

The kinds of things that government can provide are the following: 

• Assure that needs are met that are regarded as important by the society as a whole even 

though they may not be served by the entrepreneur. 

 

90 Public Sector/Private Sector Interaction in Providing Information Services, 2000 edition, page 24 and following. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-152 

• Provide capital investment in information resources that are beyond the capacity of private 

investment. 

• Provide for availability of information in areas, exemplified by the national census, for 

which it has specific responsibilities.91

NCLIS adopted a later iteration of basic principles for public access to Federal government 

information on June 29, 1990 and republished for comment in the June 9, 1995 Federal Register:92

• Principle 1. The public has the right of access to public information.

• Principle 2. The federal government should guarantee the integrity and preservation of pubic 

information, regardless of its format. 

• Principle 3. The federal government should guarantee the dissemination, reproduction, and 

redistribution of public information. 

• Principle 4. The federal government should safeguard the privacy of persons who use or request 

information, as well as persons about whom information exists in government records. 

• Principle 5. The federal government should ensure a wide diversity of sources of access, private 

as well as governmental, to public information. 

• Principle 6. The federal government should not allow cost to obstruct the people's access to public 

access. 

• Principle 7. The federal government should ensure that information about government information 

is easily available and in a single index accessible in a variety of formats. 

• Principle 8. The federal government should guarantee the public's access to public information, 

regardless of where they live and work, through national networks and programs like the [Federal] 

Depository Library Program. 

Although they were not discussed in depth, many Panel members believe the principles enunciated in 

the 1982 Report remain generally viable. The later principles developed by NCLIS complement the 

1982 principles. In addition, many Panel 4 members believe that the 1982 Report's summary of the 

traditional roles of private enterprise, libraries and government in disseminating and providing access 

to government information remain valid in the electronic information marketplace, while at the same 

time recognizing that those roles—particularly the dissemination and recognizing that those roles—

particularly the dissemination and access activities of government and libraries—are evolving as 

electronic commerce increases and may need to be reviewed. Nevertheless, the Panel agreed that the 

Federal government should strive to encourage that a diversity of sources for government information 

are maintained, in order to assure that each sector can maximize its resources and capabilities to assure 

broad access by the American public to government information. 

 

91 It should be noted that the 1982 Report also contained statements explaining the view of some members of the NCLIS 

Task Force on the need for a more active role of direct government intervention in the marketplace. The 1982 Report 

mentions specifically the following possible activities: (1) changing incentives so that the forces of the marketplace will fill 

the needs; (2) providing subsidies to producers or consumers; (3) directly intervening in the marketplace, and (4) providing 

products and/or services in commerce as a government activity. However, the 1982 Report seems clearly to reject that model. 

See: 1982 Report Revised, pp. 56 ff. Subsequently, Congress also determined – in enacting the PRA – that the government 

should take a more limited role in the commercial marketplace. See: 44 U.S.C. §35065(d). 92 U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Principles of Public Information; adopted June 29, 1990, 

http://www.nclis.gov/info/pripubin.html. They were published in the Federal Register on December 11, 1990, page 50899-

50900, Volume 55, Number 238. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-153 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Panel 4 has considered a number of specific issues relating to public-private sector partnership relating 

to the dissemination of and access to government information in an era where the American public is 

increasingly demanding and using information in electronic formats. The Panel focused on not only 

current statutory and regulatory provisions government Federal agency activities, but also on the 

practices and policies of agencies that have developed in relation to—or outside of—current law and 

regulations. 

As noted previously, the Panel's discussions of issues occurred against the backdrop of the 1982 

Report—including the principles and sector roles discussed as part of that report—and in the context 

of current definitions of government/public information. Although the Panel did not have an 

opportunity to analyze in detail the 1982 Report or current statutory and regulatory definitions of 

government information, Panel 4 does believe that any consideration of statutory or regulatory 

changes affecting access to Federal government information must be undertaken with special attention 

to (1) such general principles; (2) the roles of the various sectors in disseminating and maintaining 

access to government information, (3) and a clearer enunciation of what constitutes Federal 

government information. 

There remains tension between private sector and library providers of government information. Many 

private sector representatives on Panel 4 cautioned that government must restrain its activities, 

particularly if taxpayer funding is used to create products and services that already exist in the 

marketplace. Some library community representatives stressed that the government has an obligation 

to maintain no-fee public access to all government information made available to the public. 

In terms of specific actions on the part of Congress and Federal government agencies, Panel 4 

recommends: 

• Assure that the Federal government continues to have primary responsibility for the entire life 

cycle of electronic government information, including the dissemination and permanent public 

access to government information, without restrictions, to the American public. 

• Recognize that the private sector and libraries continue to play a crucial role in enhancing 

dissemination of and access to government information, and that government has an affirmative 

obligation to facilitate a diversity of sources for disseminating and gaining access to government 

information. 

• Consider applying provisions—or provisions like those—contained in 44 U.S.C. 3506(d) to 

legislative and judicial branch agencies [see Appendix A]. 

• Create realistic, statutory enforcement provisions to assure that agencies abide by requirements to 

disseminate and provide access to government information. Such enforcement mechanisms are 

important regardless of whether the requirement is a more general one, e.g., to provide such 

information to all members of the public, or more specific, e.g., the provisions for cataloging, 

indexing and no-fee public access to Federal government information through the FDLP [see 

Appendix B]. Agencies that run afoul of the law should be subject to enforcement mechanisms 

with real consequences. 

• Establish effective means for consultation and cooperation among the three branches of 

government to assure the greatest extent possible that all Federal government information is 

disseminated, and access to it maintained, in a manner most effective to meet the needs of the 

American public. Coordination of policies and procedures across the executive, legislative and 

judicial branches is crucial. A commitment by agency officials in each branch to share information 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-154 

and ideas would be advantageous to all sectors involved in disseminating and providing access to 

government information. 

One area where Panel 4 could not reach agreement is in regard to creating central government 

information policy authorities within each branch of government, or for the government as a whole. 

Clearly, Congress would have to mandate such authorities. 

Some members favored creation of central policy authorities. The central authority would provide 

clear direction to agencies; assure sharing of procedures, technologies and new standards; and provide 

the American public—including private sector and libraries—to share their knowledge and concerns 

easily with government officials who establish and oversee Federal government information policies. 

Other members expressed concerns about creating central authorities. For some, there was 

philosophical dislike for centralized government functions. Other members pointed out the practical 

problems with establishing such a central authority. Concerns included the extent to which agencies 

would resist coming under the authority of such a centralized power; whether a central authority could 

be flexible enough to review and alter regulations and standards in the rapidly evolving Internet 

environment; and generally whether any one governmental body could obtain the funding and 

resources necessary to adequately advise and oversee agency activities. 

In the end, Panel members agree on the need for greater coordination and oversight of information 

policies undertaken by all three branches of government. However, Panel 4 cannot report a unanimous 

recommendation that Congress create one or more central authorities to oversee Federal government 

information policies. 

PANEL 4, APPENDIX A: PROVISIONS FROM THE U.S. CODE, TITLE 44, SECTION 

3506(D) 

Statutory Provisions of 44 U.S.C. 3506(d), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: 

(d) With respect to information dissemination, each agency shall 

(1) ensure that the public has timely and equitable access to the agency's public 

information, including ensuring such access through - 

(A) encouraging a diversity of public and private sources for information based on 

government public information; 

(B) in cases in which the agency provides public information maintained in 

electronic format, providing timely and equitable access to the underlying 

data (in whole or in part); and 

(C) agency dissemination of public information in an efficient, effective, and 

economical manner; 

(2) regularly solicit and consider public input on the agency's information 

dissemination activities; 

(3) provide adequate notice when initiating, substantially modifying, or terminating 

significant information dissemination products; and 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-155 

(4) not, except where specifically authorized by statute - 

(A) establish an exclusive, restricted, or other distribution arrangement that 

interferes with timely and equitable availability of public information to the 

public; 

(B) restrict or regulate the use, resale, or redissemination of public information by 

the public; 

(C) charge fees or royalties for resale or redissemination of public information; or 

(D) establish user fees for public information that exceed the cost of 

dissemination. 

PANEL 4, APPENDIX B: SELECTED STATUTORY PROVISIONS FROM THE U.S. CODE, 

TITLE 44, CHAPTERS 17 AND 19 

Selected Statutory Provisions from Title 44, Chapters 17 and 19 of the U.S. Code: 

Section 1710. Index of documents: number and distribution 

The Superintendent of Documents, at the close of each regular session of Congress, shall prepare and 

publish a comprehensive index of public documents, upon a plan approved by the Joint Committee on 

Printing. The Public Printer shall, immediately upon its publication, deliver to him a copy of every 

document printed by the Government Printing Office. The head of each executive department, 

independent agency and establishment of the Government shall deliver to him a copy of every 

document issued or published by the department, bureau, or office not confidential in character. He 

shall also prepare and print in one volume a consolidated index of Congressional documents, and shall 

index single volumes of documents as the Joint Committee on Printing directs. Two thousand copies 

each of the comprehensive index and of the consolidated index shall be printed and bound in addition 

to the usual number, two hundred for the Senate, eight hundred for the House of Representatives and 

one thousand for distribution by the Superintendent of Documents. 

Section 1711. Catalog of Government publications 

On the first day of each month the Superintendent of Documents shall prepare a catalog of 

Government publications which shall show the documents printed during the preceding month, where 

obtainable, and the price. Two thousand copies of the catalog shall be printed in pamphlet form for 

distribution. 

Section 1901. Definition of Government publication

''Government publication'' as used in this chapter, means informational matter which is published as an 

individual document at Government expense, or as required by law. 

Section 1902. Availability of Government publications through Superintendent of Documents; 

lists of publications not ordered from Government Printing Office 

Government publications, except those determined by their issuing components to be required for 

official use only or for strictly administrative or operational purposes which have no public interest or 

educational value and publications classified for reasons of national security, shall be made available 

to depository libraries through the facilities of the Superintendent of Documents for public 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-156 

information. Each component of the Government shall furnish the Superintendent of Documents a list 

of such publications it issued during the previous month, that were obtained from sources other than 

the Government Printing Office. 

Section 1903. Distribution of publications to depositories; notice to Government components; 

cost of printing and binding 

Upon request of the Superintendent of Documents, components of the Government ordering the 

printing of publications shall either increase or decrease the number of copies of publications 

furnished for distribution to designated depository libraries and State libraries so that the number of 

copies delivered to the Superintendent of Documents is equal to the number of libraries on the list.... 

The Superintendent of Documents shall currently inform the components of the Government ordering 

printing of publications as to the number of copies of their publications required for distribution to 

depository libraries. The cost of printing and binding those publications distributed to depository 

libraries obtained elsewhere than from the Government Printing Office, shall be borne by components 

of the Government responsible for their issuance; those requisitioned from the Government Printing 

Office shall be charged to appropriations provided the Superintendent of Documents for that purpose. 

Section 1911. Free use of Government publications in depositories; disposal of unwanted 

publications 

Depository libraries shall make Government publications available for the free use of the general 

public, and may dispose of them after retention for five years under section 1912 of this title, if the 

depository library is served by a regional depository library. Depository libraries not served by a 

regional depository library, or that are regional depository libraries themselves, shall retain 

Government publications permanently in either printed form or in microfacsimile form, except 

superseded publications or those issued later in bound form which may be discarded as authorized by 

the Superintendent of Documents. 

PANEL 4, APPENDIX C: MEMBERS OF PANEL 4 

Wayne Kelley, Panel 4 Chairman, formerly Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 

Office (GPO) and private sector publisher 

Mary Alice Baish, American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) 

Francis Buckley, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) 

Anne Caputo, Special Libraries Association (SLA) 

Blane Dessy, U.S. Department of Justice 

Dan Duncan, consultant, formerly with the Information Industry Association (IIA) and the Software 

and Information Industry Association (SIIA) 

Wally Finch, National Technical Information Service (NTIS) 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-157 

Neal Gregory, consultant 

Donald Hagen, Bernan Associates 

Richard Kaser, National Federation of Abstracting and Information Services (NFAIS) 

Nancy Kranich, American Library Association (ALA) 

David LeDuc, Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA) 

Edwin A. Levine, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Eric Massant, Reed Elsevier Inc. 

Peyton Neal, consultant, PRN Associates 

James Nelson, State Librarian and Commissioner for Libraries and Archives, Kentucky 

Roxanne Williams, formerly U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Panel 4 Observers

Lynne Bradley, American Library Association (ALA) 

Steve Buckley, Radian Inc. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-158 

APPENDIX 27. SURVEY OF SELECTED FEDERAL AGENCY POLICIES, 

PROGRAMS AND PRACTICES RELATING TO PUBLIC INFORMATION 

DISSEMINATION 

In early September 2000, NCLIS conducted an informal survey of 38 federal agencies 

to determine their policies, programs and practices relating to public information 

dissemination. The survey instrument and the survey results are provided below. 

NCLIS SELECTED AGENCY SURVEY SAMPLING OF 

PUBLIC INFORMATION DISSEMINATION POLICIES AND PROGRAMS93

Conducted by F. Woody Horton and Sarah T. Kadec, NCLIS Consultants 

SURVEY INSTRUMENT 

As you may know, at the request of several committees of the Congress, NCLIS is engaged in a major 

study of the Federal Government's public information dissemination laws, policies, programs, and 

practices. Four panels have been at work for a month, and a board of experts is writing various invited 

papers. NCLIS will make recommendations to the President and the Congress by December 15th for 

reforms to strengthen this area. In case you are unfamiliar with the study's background, goals and 

objectives, structure, and other particulars, you may want to look at the NCLIS study web page at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.html. 

In addition to the work of our four panels and board of experts, I believe our study's co-coordinator, 

Sarah T. Kadec, has already telephoned you to discuss one important additional component of that 

study, a sampling of selected agency public information dissemination policies and programs. 

To that end, we have prepared a list of six questions. If you provide a "yes" answer to any of them, 

kindly furnish us with a hard copy of the material (or call our attention to the web site addresses 

containing the information in electronic form). 

If you have any questions, please call me at (202) 606-9200, or Sarah at (757) 259-0358. Please accept 

our grateful appreciation in advance for your assistance! 

1. Does your department/agency have published policies on government information dissemination 

to the public, and/or programs which implement those policies, especially for information 

products being made available on agency web sites in electronic formats and mediums? Short of a 

formal policy, is there a letter or other communication from a senior official that mandates the 

discontinuance of publishing an information product in paper form, in favor of utilizing electronic 

mediums and formats? 

2. Have your individual bureau-level units established their own policies and/or implementing 

programs? If so, what are they? 

 

93 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen27.pdf.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-159 

3. Does your department/agency have guidelines for adding new, changing existing, or deleting "old" 

information available to the public from its websites? Does this guidance include instructions on 

when to take information down, make a backup copy for permanent retention and availability, and 

archive an official record copy? 

4. Is there a reasonably comprehensive and authoritative listing of the department/agency's electronic 

public information products which is periodically updated? 

5. Which of your major information products/resources and/or most important information 

dissemination policies, are mandated by Congress or federal statute? Which ones were put in place 

by the President, your department/agency head, or a senior program official? 

6. Do you have any recommendations for strengthening existing laws, policies, programs, and 

practices relevant to the dissemination of, and access to, your agency's publicly available 

information? If so, what are they? 

We would much appreciate receiving this information by September 25th, or even earlier if possible, 

because of our very short study deadlines. 

F. Woody Horton 

NCLIS Consultant 

[via e-mail from whorton@nclis.gov] 

SURVEY RESPONSES FROM AGENCIES 

Introductory Note

Thirty-eight federal agencies were surveyed during the study to ascertain: 

• The level of information dissemination in electronic form. 

• Use of web sites and the management of information placed on the web. 

• The policies that have been issued relative to information dissemination, particularly in electronic 

form. 

• Whether these policies resulted from statutory, Executive Office, or Departmental requirements; 

or Agency or Bureau level program initiatives. 

• If a comprehensive listing of publicly available electronic information products existed. 

• Whether there were suggestions/recommendations for NCLIS' consideration in preparing the 

report. 

Twelve agencies responded to the survey. The responding agencies are as follows: 

1. Department of Commerce (DOC), Bureau of the Census 

2. Department of Defense (DOD) 

3. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH) 

4. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Indian Health Service (IHS) 

5. Department of the Interior (DOI), Geological Survey (USGS) 

6. Department of Labor (DOL) 

7. Department of the Treasury 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-160 

8. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

9. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

10. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

11. Smithsonian Institution 

12. Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) 

When providing the detailed responses from the agencies, the survey question number is identified, 

but the survey question is not repeated. 

Summary of Responses

Department of Commerce (DOC), Bureau of the Census. Authorizing legislation requires collection 

and publication of statistics and protects the confidentiality of the Bureau's information. The Bureau 

also follows OMB Circular A-130 in the collection and dissemination of its information. It moved to 

electronic media as the principal means of dissemination in 1995 and has issued guidelines and 

standards for use of the Internet. These are updated as needed. Individual sub-organizational units do 

not issue their own guidelines. 

General policy is to retain all information on the web though a survey is underway to determine if any 

superceded information should be replaced. Old information may be transferred to a GPO site under a 

program currently being discussed. Data products (CD-ROM and tapes) are sent to NARA. 

The Bureau maintains a complete catalog of its products on the web, updated daily. The Monthly 

Product Announcement is issued in print, e-mail and on the web, though the printed version will cease 

in January 2001. 

Census's major concern is ensuring that all data remains accessible, regardless of media. It is also 

concerned with the development of new technologies for the future. 

Department of Defense (DOD). The DOD has a number of information policies governing information 

dissemination, several of them related to information in electronic format; many related to national 

security concerns and clearance requirements; and several pertaining to the management and 

availability of records in printed or electronic form. The use of the World Wide Web is encouraged "to 

convey information quickly and efficiently on a broad range of topics relating to its activities, 

objectives, policies, and program". The individual Services and agencies have issued policies to meet 

their needs, consistent with DOD-wide guidance. 

 The "Web Site Administration Policies and Procedures" states that information posted on the web be 

timely and that outdated or superseded information is promptly removed or appropriately archived. All 

DOD organizations list their official, publicly accessible web sites, web publications, electronic 

reading room documents, and library resources in the DOD Resource Locator. 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Maintains an 

electronic listing of publications available online; no policies other than Department-wide exist or are 

used in this Division. 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Indian Health Service (IHS). Follows the 

Department's information dissemination policies, procedures and preferences. Its Records 

Management Program follows federal statutes, with policy procedures and responsibilities spelled out 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-161 

in the Agency's Manual, part 5, chapter 15. Records created or received in electronic media must be 

printed and incorporated in the official file system. 

Best practices and guidelines on the Agency web site have been published by the Information 

Technology support Center Web Team, following HHS guidelines. Any document published 

electronically must have been first published in hard copy. Guidelines include instructions on adding, 

changing, and deleting information on the web, particularly on annual updates. Backup copies of all 

content and documents are archived monthly and maintained, though the Team does not maintain 

official record copies of electronic information. 

Information on the web site is indexed and available in a searchable database; a web site map 

categorizes information by topic. The web includes news releases, fact sheets, health data information 

publications and reports, program specific announcements and guidance, and information about 

agency programs and leadership; additional documents may be electronic, especially since the 

issuance of the E-FOIA. 

The Electronic Freedom of Information page (in reading room), Kids site, Privacy Policy Page, 

Disclaimer Page, Frequently Asked Questions, and points of contact are mandated by Congress in 

federal statutes. 

Department of the Interior (DOI), Geological Survey (USGS). Policies follow the DOI and USGS 

manual guidance on disseminating information to the public. Authority is delegated to the lowest level 

possible, but policies related to electronic information are generally at the Division level. USGS has 

developed internal guidelines for web publication and for use of the Visual Identify on information 

products. 

The Biological Resources, Geology, National Mapping, and Water Resources Divisions have outlined 

publication procedures in internal memoranda. One Division requires all new formal publications be 

on the web; some publications series are digital only. Others are putting earlier general interest 

publications on the web to increase their availability and reduce printing and distribution costs. 

 

The Geologic Division guidelines and policies state that all information products will be technically 

sound and scientifically credible, effectively convey the intended message to target audience, have 

required authorization and sufficient funding, will be archived for long-term preservation, and will be 

produced in electronic form at a minimum (with printed products from these electronic materials 

optional). 

The Biologic Resources Division's policies require inclusion of metadata in the National Biological 

Information Infrastructure, peer review, and publishing in the BRD series. Products are to be 

distributed to NTIS and DTIC to ensure broad availability. 

The National Mapping Division (responsible for much of the reproduction and dissemination of USGS 

products) has policies regarding free distribution of maps and map indexes, implementation and 

maintenance of the Spatial Data Transfer Standard (format of geospatial data available for free 

downloading from the Internet), product delivery to government partners and geospatial metadata 

product information. 

The Earth Science Information Centers operate the nationwide information and sales service for all 

maps and earth science publications. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-162 

A recent Bureau-wide policy requires a disposition schedule be created for all publications; but not 

how long it should be on the web, since that is determined by the author of the web page. Each 

Division and smaller unit maintains lists of electronic information products; efforts are underway to 

create a standard list incorporating all publishing units. 

The USGS formal series publications (professional papers, bulletins, various map series, etc.) are 

authorized by Congress; dissemination complies with the American Technology Preeminence Act; 

printed products are distributed to the Federal Depository Libraries in compliance with Title 44; and 

the National Geographic Mapping Act mandates a database with a map catalog linking to maps 

published by USGS and its partner, the Association of American State Geologists. Executive Order 

12906 requires metadata be included in the MBII or NDSF. OMB Circular A-130 provides guidance 

on information dissemination. 

 

Department of Labor (DOL). The DOL follows government-wide information dissemination policies 

such as those included in the Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act, Section 

III, Public Information. The DOL's rules governing Internet services were published in the Federal 

Register (29 CFR, pt. 70 et seq.) in compliance with the Manual. The Department follows 

requirements in the FOIA, E-FOIA, Privacy Act and OMB Circular A-130. A number of Secretary's 

orders and internal memorandum and the Department of Labor Manual Series (DLMS) implement 

federal laws and departmental policy. A Department "Public Web Site Content Clearance Process" 

calls for the development of an "Internet Clearance and Operating Procedures" and this is underway. 

 The Department's Manual designates the Office of Public Affairs as the information dissemination 

policy maker, and all agencies and bureaus recognize this and incorporate it in any of their individual 

agency/bureau policies. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mine Safety and Health Administration, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy (ASP) and Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) 

have policies or they are in draft; most have web sites following Departmental Policy. 

All information placed on the main DOL or individual agency web sites receives appropriate review 

and clearance prior to issuance, including timeliness and accuracy, need for coordination with other 

agencies and appropriate levels of clearance. 

There is no Department-wide listing of publications issued electronically; these lists exist at the 

agency/bureau level. 

 

Department of the Treasury. Treasury follows government-wide regulations on information 

dissemination such as the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to implement the Government Information 

Locator System (GILS). The Chief Information Officer (CIO) has created an information management 

program office with responsibility for information dissemination policy. Policies will be developed, 

with assistance from the General Counsel, to carry out requirements of the PRA/GILS, the E-FOIA 

and the Treasury Internet policy site guidelines. Individual agencies do not have dissemination 

policies, though the Financial Management Service (FMS) has developed a style guide. 

 The Department and Bureaus have developed guidelines for managing information on the web sites. 

FMS has specific guidelines on keeping the FMS web site current. New items must be approved at the 

Director level, with a signed Memorandum of Understanding. All content providers must review and 

certify the accuracy of their data on a quarterly schedule. A CD of the FMS web site is produced 

monthly for archival purposes. The various agencies and bureaus maintain updated listings of their 

electronic public information products on their web sites. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-163 

The E-FOIA and GILS mandate the FOIA reading room by the PRA. The Assistant Secretary for 

Management/CFO and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information Systems/CIO established the 

Treasury web site; the head of the bureau and the CIO authorized bureau web sites. 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Department has issued policies to implement the Freedom 

of Information Act and dissemination of government information, and is in the process of drafting an 

Internet/Intranet policy. Individual bureaus have not established separate policies. 

 There is no updated, comprehensive and authoritative listing of VA electronic information; there is an 

index to information in its Electronic Reading Room and an AltaVista search of pages on the web 

updated in 1994. The Veteran's Benefit Administration (BA) maintains a Web-Automated Reference 

Materials System (WARMS) providing Internet access to VBA manuals, directives, circulars, letters, 

Title 38 CFR, and other materials to Veterans Service Organizations (VSO), educational institutions 

and the general public. The WARMS information is also available free on CD-ROM (ARMS-CD), 

using a different search engine. Links on the WARMS web page permits the user to download the free 

Microsoft viewer software to display the retrieved documents. Feedback to the ARMS mailbox is 

encouraged on the web site. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s Information 

Resources Management Policy Manual (Directive 2100) includes the "Policy on Public Access to EPA 

Information" in Chapter 21; the "Web Guide" includes policies and informal guidelines in the use of 

the web; and a memorandum has been issued on "cookies". The Agency is developing policies 

regarding Disabled Access, Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and the use of Non-EPA servers; as 

well as a strategy providing direction for the various components of public access. 

EPA believes that its users need information in paper as well as electronic forms. A memorandum 

"Public Availability of EPA Information Via Internet" issued September 23, 1996 commits the 

Agency to using electronic formats, but doesn't preclude the issuance of information in paper. 

EPA's "Web Guide" provides guidelines for adding, changing or deleting information from a web site. 

When the data owner asks to place information on the web, he or she must maintain and be 

responsible for the information. The Agency's "Online Rules of Publishing" addresses recordkeeping, 

permanent retention and availability, and archiving; recordkeeping requirements must be established 

for records created or received. These areas will be addressed further. 

EPA's public information products on the Internet are on each Program Office's web site. In addition 

the Government Information Locator System (GILS) is being maintained through GPO and on EPA's 

web site. EPA, in cooperation with the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) is working on an 

Information Products Bulletin (IPB) that will provide a comprehensive listing of both EPA and the 

states significant information products under development or modification. The IPB, seen as a means 

of improving the public's access to information about environmental conditions and trends, will be 

released in March 2001 and updated every six months. 

Various Agency legislation, in most instances Program specific, mandates information dissemination 

to the public. "Protecting Personal Privacy on EPA's Public Access Web Site: Cookies Policy" was 

issued by the Office of Environmental Information. It provides guidance for EPA Programs on 

protecting the privacy of citizens using EPA web sites. 

EPA's authorities stem from a number of different statutes; integrating the data and information from 

these programs is a major challenge. The Office of Environmental Information was created to 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-164 

coordinate the Program Offices activities in collecting quality environmental information and making 

it available to the public. 

 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC has several written policies on access and 

dissemination of information to the public and several NPRMS and reports and orders on electronic 

filing initiatives. Without a written policy, notices, news releases, reports and Commission orders back 

to 1994 are included on the web site as a means of quickly disseminating information. Individual 

bureaus, including Wireless (on using the Universal Licensing Systems (ULS)), Mass Media, and 

Consumer Information Bureau (Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS)) also have written 

policies.

The web site has never been purged, though individual documents have been replaced if incorrect or a 

substantially wrong document has been posted. FCC currently provides NARA the paper original for 

records retention purposes; plans call for submitting Computer Output Microfilm/Microfiche (COM) 

instead of paper (NARA cannot take CD/ROM). 

GILS has not been kept up to date. There are two search applications using numbers and subjects to 

check the web site for relevant documents available over the Internet. 

Congress requires the FCC Auctions activities; the Chairmen have been responsible for the push to use 

the Internet for electronic filing and dissemination. 

Smithsonian Institution. The Smithsonian is a trust established by Congress, thus it has no policies on 

government information dissemination. However its mission to increase and diffuse knowledge results 

in publication of research results, scholarly and popular pubs, its exhibitions and public programs, 

issuances of the Office of Public Affairs and a web site (www.si.edu). It responds to requests from the 

public, though exempt from the FOIA. The web site contains a listing of the Smithsonian's electronic 

publications. 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC). The AOUSC provides useful and timely 

information to the public through the AO's Internet site (www.uscourts.gov) , publications, news 

releases, phone and fax. Most of the frequently requested publications are available through the web 

site, which is also a gateway to federal court information nationwide as well as many other courtrelated sites and to the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system. Proposed 

amendments to rules, information on meetings of the Judicial Conference Committees, requests for 

proposals are included on the web site. 

The AO's Office of Public Affairs (OPAF) manages the Internet site and is the point of contact for the 

news media. It regularly updates the materials and publications on the web site; time-sensitive 

information like job announcements and request for comments on proposed rules of practice and 

procedure are removed automatically after their closing dates. 

The AO's Catalog of Administrative Office Publications includes all items produced by, and currently 

available from, the AOUSC. Those in electronic format are noted. The Internet site's search 

capabilities provide for easy identification of public information products; the site also indicates which 

publications are required by law. 

The Rules Enabling Act (28 USC, paragraphs 2071-2077) requires the wide public dissemination of 

proposed changes to the rules of practice and procedures used by lawyers practicing in federal court. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-165 

Proposed amendments were published on the web site for the first time in 1999; comments on the 

proposed amendments have been received by e-mail to the site. 

Detailed Responses94

Department of Commerce (DOC), Bureau of the Census 

The responses below report on activities at the U.S. Census Bureau and do not represent the entire 

Department of Commerce. 

1. First and foremost, the Census Bureau is bound by its authorizing legislation, Title 13, United 

States Code (U.S.C.). Title 13, Chapters 3 and 5 specifically deal with the collection and 

publication of statistics. Chapter 1, Section 9 protects the confidentiality of Census Bureau 

information, prohibiting "any publication whereby the data furnished by any particular 

establishment or individual under this title can be identified." For data available for public release, 

Census Bureau dissemination policies follow OMB Circular A-130, which states that information 

is a public good and that "because the public disclosure of government information is essential to 

the operation of a democracy, the management of federal information resources should protect the 

public's right of access to government information." Most Census Bureau information is available 

for free through the Internet; often the same information is available in other formats. 

2. In 1995 the Census Bureau determined that electronic media would be the principal means of 

dissemination. Specific written guidelines and/or statements have been released on dissemination, 

pricing, and roles and responsibilities regarding the Internet. The Department of Commerce 

Rehabilitation Act guidelines set forth in Departmental Administrative Order 215-10, "Reasonable 

Accommodation for Disabilities in Employment," implements the 1998 Amendments to the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as detailed in the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. The Census 

Bureau's IT Standards establish a consistent look and feel for Census Bureau Internet site and set 

the standard for easy use and accessibility, consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

The Census Bureau is now in the process of developing additional guidelines for the Internet 

material; the work on these standards is just being initiated at this time. 

3. No, [Census has not established its own policies and/or implementing programs]. 

4. Our general policy is to not remove any information from our Internet site. We are surveying our 

various divisions to determine if there are instances where information may be superceded and 

replaced. We are working with the Government Printing Office to move any such "old" 

information to a GPO website. Copies of data products on tape and CD-ROM are routinely sent to 

the National Archives and Records Administration. 

5. Yes, a catalog of all current Census Bureau products (electronic and otherwise) is maintained on 

our website and updated daily. See: http://www.census.gov/mp/www/censtore.html. Our Monthly 

Product Announcement provides a regular listing of new products on a monthly basis. It is 

available in print, e-mail, and on the web, although the printed version will be discontinued in 

January 2001. 

6. The Census Bureau is mandated by Title 13, U.S.C., to collect and publish information on a 

variety of topics, including the population and the economy, in accordance with the confidentiality 

restrictions spelled out in Section 9. 

 

94 When providing the detailed responses from the agencies, the survey question number is identified, but the survey question 

is not repeated. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-166 

Other Comments: 

One major concern is the need to ensure that all data remain accessible, regardless of deterioration of 

past and current media and development of new technological changes in the future. 

Department of Defense (DOD) 

1. There are several Department of Defense policies related to dissemination of government 

information to the public. The core policy establishing such guidance is: 

• "Principles of Information" which are codified as Enclosure (2) to DoD Directive 

5122.5, "Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs" 

(http://web7.whs.osd.mil/pdf/d51225p.pdf) 

Additional Departmental guidance that establishes policy and procedures for providing 

information to the public include: 

• DoD Directive 5230.9, "Clearance of DoD Information for Public Release" 

(http://www.defenselink.mil/admin/dd5230_9.html) 

• Deputy Secretary of Defense memo, 17 February 1995, "Clearance Procedures for 

Making Electronic Information Available to the Public" 

(http://www.defenselink.mil/admin/memo.html) 

• DoD Instruction 5230.29, "Security and Policy Review of DoD Information for Public 

Release" (http://web7.whs.osd.mil/pdf/i523029p.pdf) 

• Armed Forces Information Service Policy Memorandum, "Electronic Newspaper 

Policy" (http://www.defenselink.mil/admin/5120_4.html) 

• The "DoD Web Site Administration Policies and Procedures" encourages use of the 

World Wide Web "to convey information quickly and efficiently on a broad range of 

topics relating to its activities, objectives, policies and program." It can be found at 

(http://www.defenselink.mil/admin/dod_web_policy_12071998.html) 

Finally, the Department requires that records be made available electronically in 

accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 

522 (a)(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D)) through: 

• DoD Regulation 5400.7-R, "DoD Freedom of Information Act Program" 

(http://web7.whs.osd.mil/pdf2/54007r(9-98)/p54007r.pdf), paragraph C2.1.2, 

• With respect to DoD electronic business/electronic commerce (EB/EC) efforts, Joint 

Electronic Commerce Program Office (JECPO), was established under the Defense 

Reform Initiative to be the focal point for strategic implementation of EB/EC policy 

within DoD. The web pages for the Joint Electronic Commerce Program Office 

(JECPO) (http://www.acq.osd.mil/jecpo/) include links to the DoD EB/EC Strategic 

Plan, Departmental guidance related to EB/EC, and to ongoing EB/EC projects within 

DoD. 

2. The policies identified above are DoD-wide. In addition to those, the Services and Agencies can 

and have issued policies or programs tailored to their own needs, yet consistent with DoD-wide 

guidance. Examples of Service and Agency EC/EB efforts can be found via the Department's 

JECPO webpage identified above under the "DoD EC Partners" link. Web guidance issued and 

implemented by individual Services and Agencies can be accessed at the following website: 

(http://www.defenselink.mil/admin/about.html - WebPolicies) 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-167 

3. The Web Site Administration Policies and Procedures, identified in answer #1 above, focuses on 

providing guidance on posting information (see Parts II and V). It requires that the information on 

web sites be timely (see Part I, paragraph 5.5.7) and that outdated or superseded information is 

promptly removed or appropriately archived (see Part II, paragraph 4.2.3), but does not specify 

further criteria. 

4. All Department of Defense organizations are required to register their official, publicly accessible 

web sites, web publications, electronic reading room documents, and library sources in the DoD 

Resource Locator (http://sites.defenselink.mil/). The DoD Resource Locator hosts the DoD 

implementation of the Government Information Locator Service (GILS), as required by OMB 

Circular A-130. 

5. Mandated by Congress or Statute: FOIA/E-FOIA 

• Mandated by President/OMB: The Department's implementation of GILS, required by 

OMB circular A-130) 

• Mandated by Department of Defense Policy: Policies related to the use of the World 

Wide Web, information dissemination, public affairs-related guidance. 

In addition, the DOD's EB/EC efforts are guided by a combination of federal-level and 

department-level initiatives and guidance. 

6. Although we do not have a specific proposal, we wish to note that there is a need to review 

existing requirements with the objective of strengthening the government's ability to address 

security and privacy concerns associated with the aggregation of unclassified information made 

possible and increasingly easy by electronic means such as the World Wide Web. Current statutes, 

policies and other rules and guidelines for public release of information were developed to serve a 

paper-based world. Electronic dissemination of information has created an entirely new 

environment of data mining and rapid aggregation of information that was unforeseen by those 

rules and requirements. The DOD increasingly is concerned about the risks posed by this 

aggregation of unclassified information in electronic formats, and while DOD has taken steps to 

address these issues within the Department by updating its guidance, the government as a whole 

must address this growing concern. 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH) 

To the very best of our knowledge, the answers to the questions below, as they pertain to the NIH, 

would be no--with the exception of question number 4. We do maintain an electronic listing of 

publications available online. They can be found at: http://www.nih.gov/health/consumer/index.htm. 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Indian Health Service (IHS) 

1. The Indian Health Service (IHS) follows information dissemination policies, procedures, and 

preferences established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as well as those 

that are issued that affect all federal agencies. Unpublished interpretations of these policies are 

provided to IHS senior officials and staff by various program areas relevant to their particular 

communication and information dissemination focus: programs such as the Office of Management 

Support (Division of Information Resources [Information Technology Support Center], Division 

of Administrative Support [Forms and Records Management], Division of Regulatory and Legal 

Affairs [Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act], Office of the Executive Secretariat, and the 

Office of Management Policy); and the Office of the Director (Public Affairs). 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-168 

The IHS Records Management Program is governed by the following mandates: The 

Federal Records Act of 1950, P.L. 754, Chapter 849; The Paperwork Reduction Act, P.L. 

96-511; The Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act, P.L. 99-500. Using these three 

statutory authorities as guidance, the IHS has developed policy, procedures, 

responsibilities, and other elements pertinent to the administration of the IHS Records 

Management Program. Indian Health Manual Part 5, Chapter 15 "Records Management 

Program", TN 97-04, is the current policy. This chapter is available at: 

http://www.ihs.gov/PublicInfo/Publications/IHSManual/Parts_index.html, part 5. Within 

the current IHM Part 5, Chapter 15, the policy on electronic records is: "Records created 

or received using electronic media must be printed out in paper form and filed in the 

official file system." (IHM 5-15.8E) 

The IHS Information Technology Support Center Web Team has published best practices 

and guidelines on the agency web site, based on those of HHS, that define a general set of 

rules for publishing information on the IHS intranet and internet servers. The best 

practices and guidelines are available at: 

http://home.webteam.ihs.gov/ProductsServices/index.cfm?module=prodserv&client_id=59. 

Since the inception of the IHS Internet presence, the general rule has been not to publish 

any document electronically that has not been published in hard copy before. General web 

page content must be approved by an Office or Program Official who is, at least, a 

Division Director. 

No, [there is no letter or other communication from a senior official that mandates the 

discontinuance of publishing an information product in paper form, in favor of utilizing 

electronic mediums and formats.] The IHS follows the guidance and regulations set forth 

in the Paperwork Reduction Act and Records Management and Disposition Regulations. 

2. No. The IHS has not issued any requirement that forms or information products be exclusively 

available only electronically. 

3. Yes. That guidance is contained in the IHS best practices and guidelines available electronically 

at: http://home.webteam.ihs.gov/ProductsServices/index.cfm?module=prodserv&client_id=59. 

Yes. Guidance, on at least annual updates, is included in the best practices and guidelines 

for the intranet/Internet. Persons responsible for content are instructed to keep backup 

copies of all content and documents and to observe any records management guidelines. 

The ITSC Web Team does not maintain official record copies of electronic information, 

but archives of all information available on the web site is archived monthly in the event 

this data is required. 

4. All information on the IHS web sites is indexed and contained in a database that is searchable 

online. The web site also has a site map that categorizes information available by topic. All of the 

IHS Directives, Circulars, and the IHS Operating Manual are available on-line. In addition, 

information products that are also of public interest, some of which were developed specifically 

for public dissemination, are available on-line. Items such as news releases, fact sheets, health data 

information publications and reports, program specific announcements and guidance, and other 

information about agency programs and leadership. The IHS web site searchable database 

represents a reasonably comprehensive and authoritative listing of what is electronically available 

on the web, but it does not represent what additional IHS information documents may be 

electronically available. It is reasonable to assume that since the issuance of the Electronic 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-169 

Freedom of Information Act and the advances and reliance on computer technology, most every 

IHS document can be provided electronically. 

5. Electronic Freedom of Information page (reading room), Kids site, privacy policy page, disclaimer 

page, frequently asked questions, points of contact. 

Most required information products were implemented before requirements were 

identified by executive or departmental directive. 

6. None. Current laws, policies, programs, and practices are sufficient. Current requirements allow 

the agency to develop responsive practices to meet the public's interest in obtaining information 

documents about our agency. Current requirements allow for flexibility and agency discretion to 

design systems and programs with the goal of information dissemination. Additional requirements 

are not desired and if proposed they should be carefully evaluated as to the impact on workload 

and staff capacity to meet additional workloads or burdensome and unreasonable expectations or 

deadlines. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

Overview

The U.S. Geological Survey is mandated through its Organic Act to examine the geological 

structure, mineral resources, and products of the national domain, and throughout its history the 

USGS has been committed to disseminating the results of its studies to those who need or can use the 

information. In general, USGS has delegated authority to the lowest level possible. Most bureau 

publication policies outlined in the USGS manual reflect the older technology of printing rather than 

electronic dissemination; newer policies related to electronic information dissemination are generally 

at the division rather than the bureau level. 

Responses to Questions

1. Yes, we have published policies; a number of chapters in the DOI and USGS manuals provide 

policy guidance on disseminating information to the public. In addition, the USGS has developed 

internal guidelines for web publication and for use of our Visual Identity on information products. 

The USGS has a fax-on-demand capability (703/648/4888; also available through the tollfree number 1-888-ASK-USGS) through which the public can access a number of short 

publications. 

2. Yes, there are internal memoranda from the Associate Directors of the four USGS divisions 

(Biological Resources, Geology, National Mapping, and Water Resources) that outline publication 

procedures. One Division has a policy that all new formal publications must be available on the 

Web, and some publications series are digital only. In addition, many groups are informally 

putting many of their previously published general-interest publications on the Web, both to 

increase the availability of these materials and to reduce printing and distribution costs. The 

websites listed under question 4 include links to many of these publications. 

Examples of division-level guidelines/policies follow: 

Geologic Division will create, maintain, and distribute a wide variety of earth-science 

products in order to convey the results of Program or reimbursable activities to diverse 

audiences. All products will be technically sound and scientifically credible, will 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-170 

effectively convey the intended message to the target audience, will have required 

authorization and sufficient funding, and will be archived for long-term preservation. 

6.1.3 All formal products of Geologic Division will be produced and distributed in 

electronic 

 form at a minimum. 

 6.1.3.1 Products such as printed books, pamphlets, and maps derived from the electronic 

 material are optional, depending on the need and available funding. 

BRD has several policies that touch on issues related to dissemination. These include 

policies on preparation and inclusion of metadata in the National Biological Information 

Infrastructure (#08 Metadata for Data Sets and Information Products), peer review (#11 

Science Quality), and publishing in the internal BRD series (#14 Printing and Publishing). 

Our publishing program guidelines instruct publishers within BRD to provide copies of 

published reports to the National Technical Information Service and the Defense 

Technical Information Center to ensure broad availability. No formal or informal guidance 

has been issued advocating discontinuation of paper products, with the exception of a few 

informal, infrequently published products. 

The National Mapping Division does much of the reproduction and dissemination of 

USGS products. Policies include: 99-1, Free Automatic Distribution of USGS Paper Maps 

and Map Indexes; 98-6, Implementation and Maintenance of the Spatial Data Transfer 

Standard, relating to the format of geospatial data that are available for free download 

from the Internet; 98-5, Product Delivery to Partners, relating to delivery of products, both 

digital and hard copy, to government partners that contribute to the costs of producing a 

geospatial product; and 98-1, Policy on Geospatial Metadata, relating to the product 

information that is distributed with each product. 

The USGS Earth Science Information Centers (ESICs) offer a nationwide information and 

sales service for all USGS map products and earth science publications. A customer can 

call toll free 1-888-ASK-USGS (275-8747) for more information. At this number the 

customer can get technical and product ordering information. A list of the ESICs and other 

information about them can be found at http://mapping.usgs.gov/esic/esic_index.html. 

3. We have a new Bureau-wide information product management policy that clearly states a 

disposition schedule should be created for all publications. We do not have a Bureau-level policy 

that indicates the specifics of how long a document should be on the web; that information is 

determined by the authors of the page. 

Archiving is clearly an important issue; at this time adequate funding has not been 

provided to address the problem of electronically archiving the vast amount of information 

that USGS has produced. 

4. There are a number of lists of electronic information products, generally maintained by divisions 

or smaller geographically based units. See examples at 

http://geology/usgs.gov/products/html

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/

http://mapping.usgs.gov/mac/isb/pubs/pubslists/index.html

Other ways to find USGS information on the web include 

http://www.usgs.gov/library/

http://edc.usgs.gov/webglis/
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-171 

http://edcsns17.cr.usgs.gov/EarthExplorer/

A group within USGS is currently working to develop a standard list that will include all 

publishing units. 

5. Our formal series publications (professional papers, bulletins, various map series, etc.) are 

authorized by Congress. Like all federal agencies, we distribute our printed products to Federal 

Depository Libraries. Our information dissemination activities were designed to comply with the 

provisions of the American Technology Preeminence Act, OMB Circular A-130, and other 

government-wide statutes related to information availability. 

Inclusion of metadata in the NBII or NSDI is mandated by Executive Order 12906. The 

National Geologic Mapping Act requires the USGS to build a national geologic map 

database which provides, through its "map catalog", a link to all geoscience maps 

published by the USGS and its partner in the act, the Association of American State 

Geologists. 

6. This is a critical area; the information paid for by taxpayer dollars must be accessible to the public 

to the maximum extent feasible. NARA has the authority, but perhaps inadequate resources, to 

establish policies and standards for archiving. A clearinghouse approach may be the most 

appropriate approach for the vast amount of diverse information available, as long as consistent, 

long-term funding is assured. 

Department of Labor (DOL) 

The Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act95, section 3, Public 

Information (attached), is one of the primary authorities that governs how agencies 

distribute information to the public. On the issue of applicability, the Manual reads "(t)his 

section, unlike the other provisions of the Act, is applicable to all agencies of the United 

States, excluding Congress." It also notes two exceptions, namely a need for secrecy and 

any matter relating solely to the internal management of an agency. Section 3(a) directs 

each agency to "separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register" its 

organization, procedures and substantive rules. DOL's rules regarding Internet Services 

were published in August of the current year.96 In reviewing the Manual further, it 

discusses the Department's publishing obligations, as they relate to substantive rules, 

procedures and any orders or decisions that are by nature adjudicatory, such as ARB or 

ECAB decisions. The public records requirement is also articulated, and is most often 

applied in a FOIA context. The Manual states in relevant part: 

Each agency should publish in the Federal Register, under 3 (a) (1), a rule listing the 

types of official records in its files, classifying them in terms of whether or not they 

are confidential in character, stating the manner in which information is available (as 

by inspection or sale of photostatic copies), the method of applying for information, 

and by what officials the application will be determined. 

It is left to the agencies to determine if what is produced should be considered part of the 

official record. "Each agency must examine its functions and the substantive statutes 

under which it operates to determine which of its materials are to be treated as matters of 

 

95 http://www.oalj.dol.gov/public/apa/refrnc/ag02.htm. 96 http://www2.dol.gov/dol/_sec/public/regs/fedreg/notices/2000020763.htm. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-172 

official record for the purposes of the section." It should be noted that on the issue of 

report publication or publication in general, the Manual is silent. 

Another often cited reference is the OMB Circular A-130.97 "Circular No. A-130 

provides uniform government-wide information resources management policies as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35." The Circular describes the 

management of information: "Agencies shall plan in an integrated manner for 

managing information throughout its life cycle" and then articulates steps A-F 

regarding information management planning. Of particular interest is the section on 

Electronic Information Dissemination. It reads in relevant part: 

Agencies shall use electronic media and formats, including public networks, as 

appropriate and within budgetary constraints, in order to make government 

information more easily accessible and useful to the public.

The Circular then goes on to discuss several points on when this type of format 

(electronic) is appropriate. 

The regulations that govern the Department's disclosure of information policies are 

outlined in 29 CFR part 70 et seq. (attached). Note that the date of enactment, unless 

otherwise noted in the specific part, is May 30, 1989. The policy is articulated in part 70.3 

(Subpart A General) which states: 

All agency records, except those specifically exempted by one or more provisions of 5 

U.S.C. sect. 552(b) shall be made promptly available to any person submitting a 

written request in accordance with the procedures of this part. 

According to part 70.4 of the same title, these materials include final opinions and orders 

[70.4(a)(1)], statement of policy and interpretation not published in the Federal Register

[70.4(a)(2)], and administrative staff manuals not exempt under section (b) of FOIA 

[70.4(a)(3)]. Subsection (b) of the same part also calls for current indices providing 

identifying information regarding any material issues adopted or promulgated after July 4, 

1967. This same subsection also adopts a provision that provides for the removal of 

identifying details from any record that is published or made available for inspection, so 

as to prevent an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Subpart B outlines the 

procedure for disclosure of records under the Freedom of Information Act, Subpart C 

discusses costs for production of documents and Subpart D discusses public records. 

Internal Department of Labor public information dissemination guidelines are articulated 

in a number of Secretary's Orders and other internal memoranda, and the Department of 

Labor Manual Series (DLMS), all of which are discussed in more detail in the paragraphs 

below. 

The Secretary's Order dated August 16, 2000 is an acknowledgement that the Department 

is beginning the process of upgrading their standards for web-based delivery of 

government information. These standards include a commitment to regularly update laws, 

 

97 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a130/a130.html#8. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-173 

regulations, programs and activities on each agency web page. In reference to the 

information delivery issues at hand, the Order reads: 

e. Ensure that all information placed on the main DOL or individual agency web sites receives 

appropriate review and clearance within the Department prior to issuance, including 

consideration of all appropriate factors such as: the need for coordination between relevant 

agencies; appropriate levels of clearance; timeliness and accuracy of information; and the 

implications of applicable statutory and administrative requirements or guidelines. 

Continuing on, the Order says that: 

Departmental Public Web Site Content Clearance Process refers to the procedures to be 

developed by the Assistant Secretary for Policy (ASP) for purposes of the Department's 

review and approval of documents and other substantive materials to be placed on the DOL 

public web site and which require Department-level clearance. 

As this inquiry has shown, the ASP or OASP, is in the process of developing these 

guidelines in compliance with this Secretarial Order. 

The "Internet Clearance and Operating Procedures" memo to DOL Executive Staff, dated 

October 29, 1996, provides interim guidance for policies and procedures to address the 

most pressing concerns regarding the Department's Internet policy. It sets out interim 

policy covering information involving the Secretary, the DOL Homepage, Internetspecific information, links to sites outside DOL and inaccurate, outdated or missing 

information. Of note, the policy regarding the Internet Homepage requires agencies to 

notify ASP in writing at least one week prior to the planned release date, and then ASP 

will coordinate these requests with OPA. The policy articulation regarding Internetspecific information requires each agency to identify an Internet Coordinator, and notify 

ASP of that person's identity. Further, and of greater importance to the issues being 

considered here, each agency will establish written clearance official(s) at the policy level 

for all information contained on their Internet sites. 

Secretary's Order 6-83, dated April 21, 1983 (attached), deals with the consolidation and 

control of Department of Labor Audiovisual Activities. This Order delegates authority and 

assigns responsibility for the management, coordination and control of the Department's 

audiovisual program to the Office of Information and Public Affairs. As it relates to the 

DLMS Chapter 5, this Order defines the policy by which all materials are cleared through 

the Department's Control System (see DLMS 5-540). An exception is noted for production 

of research reports, statistical analysis, et al, when the primary intent behind such 

production is to provide limited distribution within the government, among the personnel 

of an agency for policy analysis and formulation, or when produced by an analyst for 

presentation of research before professional bodies. 

Secretary's Order 37-65, dated December 8, 1965 (attached), delegates authority and 

assigns responsibility for public information, publications and reports for functions within 

the Department. It should be noted that this order is cited in the Department of Labor 

Manual Series, discussed below, and is still active policy for publications and reports. The 

Order states, in relevant part, that the heads of administrations, bureaus and offices are 

responsible for "... developing planning goals and program objectives for information, 

publications and reports activities covering substantive program areas." The Director, 

Office of Information, Publications and Reports is responsible for "prescribing policy, 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-174 

guidelines and standards for the conduct of information, publications and reports programs 

and providing technical assistance and leader to information staff of Administrations, 

Bureaus and Offices." 

The Department of Labor Manual Series (DLMS), which has been referenced above, also 

discusses public information disclosure and distribution. DLMS 5, Chapter 30098

discusses disclosure of records under the Freedom of Information Act. Note that again, the 

internal operating guidance is silent on the issue of report publication or publication in 

general. DLMS 5, Chapter 50099 discusses the Department's Office of Public Affairs 

(OPA or OIPA), including its role as the information dissemination policy maker for the 

Department. Section 523 deals with publications, and states in relevant part: "OIPA is 

required to review all DOL publications to be distributed to the public by the following 

orders..." and instructions as to format, attribution, and prior approval are articulated. I 

found this directive to be widely recognized by agencies, as articulated below. DLMS 5-1 

constitutes the Handbook on Public Affairs Policy (attached). 

At the sub-Departmental agency level, I have contacted individuals to find out their 

agencies' information dissemination policies. In response to my queries, I received two 

general answers, either that their agency follows OPA's guidelines, or that their agency 

had no distinct policy in place. Additionally, there are materials from the agency web sites 

within DOL that show the agency's policy or mission statement in an effort to flesh out the 

purpose and policy of various agencies. The URLs for these guidance documents are 

given in chart format. To give the end user a sense of structure, I have also included the 

DOL Organizational Chart.100 

Agency Response 

ARB The website101 provides access to Board decisions, Executive Mission and Members. 

ASP Web policies are still in draft 102. The DOL Policy Center Overview is cited below.103

BLS Three policy documents are attached. Mission statement is cited below.104

BRB The website105 provides access to Board decisions and Executive Mission. 

ECAB No written policy, the website provides access to Board decisions and Board's 

function.106

ESA Their website107 provides access to laws and regulations, published reports and mission 

statement. 

 

98 http://www.labornet.dol.gov/OASAM/LIBRARYxDLMS/dlms5_300.htm. 99 http://www.labornet.dol.gov/OASAM/LIBRARYxDLMS/dlms5_500.htm. 100 http://www2.dol.gov/dol/public/aboutdol/org/orgchart.htm. 101 http://www2.dol.gov/dol/arb/. 102 http://www-test.dol.gov/dol/dolonly/internet/standards.htm. 103 http://www2.dol.gov/dol/asp/public/aboutasp/mission/mission.htm. 104 http://www.bls.gov/blsmissn.htm. 105 http://www2.dol.gov/dol/brb/. 106 http://www2.dol.gov/dol/ecab/. 107 http://www2.dol.gov/dol/esa/. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-175 

Agency Response 

ETA ETA has no set policy, said that divisions are supposed to follow policy set by Secy.'s 

office. Their website108 provides access to published reports and mission statement. 

Agency web technical standards, attached, are posted on the Workforce Development 

Service Center website.109

ILAB No policy of their own, they follow the Department's policy. Their website110 provides 

access to published reports and mission statement. 

MSHA Their web policy is attached. DLMS 5-1 Handbook on Public Affairs Policy, p.14, 

states MSHA Public Information Policy. Their statutory functions are cited below.111 

OALJ Their mission statement is cited below.112

OASAM The printing services brochure is attached.113 Departmental Information Accessibility 

Plan is attached. IT Center is revising their current forms, testing for document 

routing, nothing even in draft yet. Current OASAM Mission and Function is cited 

below.114

OCFO Their website115 provides access to Publications List, Financial Library (which 

includes DOL and other information), and mission statement. 

OCIO Their mission statement is cited below.116

OIG Have FOIA posted on their web page, follow E-FOIA, no other policy in place. Their 

mission statement, from Strategic Plan FY 1997-2002 is cited below.117

OSHA DLMS 5-1, Handbook on Public Affairs Policy, p. 15, states OSHA Public 

Information Policy. Docket office has procedures manual which is being updated 

(started with OPA, got transferred to Docket office) Their mission statement is cited 

below.118

OSBP Revisions to DLMS expected in mid-Oct 2000, until then, nothing. Their mission 

statement is cited below.119

PWBA They follow the Department's policy. Currently doing new ERISA processing, 

receiving materials via electronic format re: pension plans. Their Customer Service 

Standards are cited below.120

SOL Follow the Department's lead. About SOL is cited below.121

 

108 http://www.doleta.gov/. 109 http://www.wdsc.org/techcouncil/tech-std.html. 110 http://www2.dol.gov/dol/ilab/. 111 http://www.msha.gov/mshainfo/mshainf1.htm. 112 http://www.oalj.dol.gov/aljmissn.htm. 113 http://www.labornet.dol.gov/oasam/services/printing.htm. 114 http://www2.dol.gov/dol/oasam/public/info_about_oasam/mission/oasam1.htm. 115 http://www2.dol.gov/dol/ocfo/. 116 http://www2.dol.gov/dol/cio/public/about_cio/cmission.htm. 117 http://www.oig.dol.gov/public/strplan.pdf. 118 http://www.osha.gov/oshinfo/mission.html. 119 http://www2.dol.gov/dol/osbp/public/aboutosbp/mission.htm. 120 http://www2.dol.gov/dol/pwba/public/aboutpwba/main.htm. 121 http://www2.dol.gov/dol/sol/public/info_about_sol/main.htm. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-176 

Agency Response 

VETS ASVET memo 2-97 addresses this122, along with their mission statement.123

NB: we have experienced problems accessing this .pdf document, so a hard copy is 

attached. 

WB Follow department's policy, don't have their own Their mission statement is attached 

in two forms: one from their web124 and one from their office. 

Department of the Treasury 

1. The Department of the Treasury uses government-wide regulations on information dissemination 

as they have been issued. For example, we have followed the requirements under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) to implement the Government Information Locator Service (GILS). 

Effective, October 1, 2000, the Treasury Chief Information Office (CIO) recently 

reorganized and has created an information management program office that will be 

responsible for information dissemination policy. The CIO office plans to develop, with 

assistance from general counsel, the required information dissemination policies levied 

under the PRA/GILS, Electronic Freedom of Information Act (E-FOIA), and Treasury 

Internet policy site. 

2. The Treasury bureaus have not established their own information dissemination policies and/or 

implementing programs; however, the Financial Management Service (FMS) developed a style 

guide located at: http://fms.treas.gov/style.html. 

3. The Department, with involvement of the bureaus, established guidelines for managing 

information on websites. The bureaus follow the Treasury guidelines located at: 

http://www.treas.gov/internetpolicy/procedures.html. 

In addition, FMS has developed more specific guidelines to keep the FMS website 

current. New items must be approved at the Director level and include a signed 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (attached). All content providers must review and 

certify the accuracy of their data on a quarterly schedule. A CD of the FMS website is 

made monthly for archival purposes. The attached MOU lists FMS employees who 

maintain their own web on fms.treas.gov. 

4. The following sites provide Treasury public information products and are periodically updated: 

http://www.bep.treas.gov/

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/

http://www.usmint.gov/

http://www.irs.treas.gov/

http://www.treas.gov/fletc/foia/readroom.htm

http://www.customs.treas.gov/

http://www.fms.treas.gov/browse.html

http://www.treas.gov/foia

 

122 http://www-nvti.cudenver.edu/new/resources/Key Links/ASVET_MEMOS/ASVET202-97.PDF. 123 http://www2.dol.gov/dol/vets/public/aboutvets/mission/mission.htm. 124 http://www2.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/info_about_wb/mission.htm. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-177 

http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/gils/index.html

http://www.treas.gov/information.html

5. The FOIA reading room is mandated by the E-FOIA and GILS was mandated by the PRA. The 

Treasury website was established by the Assistant Secretary for Management/CFO and the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Information Systems/CIO. The bureau websites were authorized by the 

bureau's head and the CIO. 

6. Treasury requests additional guidance from: (1) the Department of Justice to implement E-FOIA; 

(2) the Office of Management and Budget to implement the Privacy Act; and (3) government 

oversight agencies on web posting and content management. Further, bureaus recommend that 

aggressive program management be used to ensure the public receives effective and complete 

dissemination of, or access to, agency information. 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

1. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has policy on the Freedom of Information Act and the 

dissemination of government information. The polices/procedures may be found at: 

a. http://www.va.gov/publ/direc/irm/6300dir.html — VA Directive 6300, Records and 

Information Management 

b. http://www.va.gov/publ/direc/irm/63003HB.html — VA Handbook 6300.3, Procedures 

for Implementing the Freedom of Information Act 

c. http://www.va.gov/publ/direc/irm/6360dir.html — VA Directive 6360, Dissemination 

of Government Held Information 

d. http://www.va.gov/publ/direc/irm/63601hb.pdf — Procedures for Implementation of 

the Government Information Locator System (GILS). 

2. Individual bureau-level units have not established separate policies or programs. They 

follow the department-wide policy. 

3. VA is in the process of drafting Internet/Intranet policy. 

4. VA does not have a comprehensive and authoritative listing of VA electronic information that is 

periodically updated. VA does have an index of information in its Electronic Reading Room 

(http://www.va.gov/foia/err/standard/Default.htm). In addition, there is an AltaVista search of 

pages on the www.va.gov web server that was last updated in 1994: http://www.altavista.com/cgibin/query?q=host%3Awww.va.gov++&r=&kl=XX&d0=&d1=12%2F31%2F1994&stype=stext&

pg=aq&Translate=on&search.x=0&search.y=0. 

VA's Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) maintains a Web – Automated Reference 

Materials Systems (WARMS). WARMS provides internet access to VBA manuals, 

directives, circulars, letters, Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations and other reference 

materials to Veterans Service Organizations (VSO), Educational Institutions and the 

general public. WARMS is available to anyone with Internet access and is subject to 

timing bottlenecks depending on the number of current users accessing the site. 

VBA also has this information available on CD-ROM (ARMS CD). The Internet version 

uses a different search engine that does not offer a wide range of search options. Searches 

can only be performed on a single database or the entire collection of databases. A copy of 

the ARMS CD-ROM may be obtained by contacting Ms. Tammy Hurley at 202-273-

7077. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-178 

The Internet address is provided to non-VA persons requesting VBA publications. The 

application is accessible using any standard Internet browser and an Internet Service 

Provider. Links are provided within the WARMS Web page to download the free 

Microsoft viewer software needed to display the retrieved documents on the user 

workstation. Viewer software should only be downloaded to those workstations that do 

not currently contain the Microsoft Office 97 suite of programs. 

Users are provided with an option to provide feedback on the site. All personal Internet 

account users can forward comments to the ARMS Mailbox using their local mail 

software. All users accessing the system on a "borrowed" Internet account, such as a 

public library or other public use workstations can forward comments using an ARMS 

Contact Form. 

The site is updated to reflect current VBA publications. 

5. Major information products, etc., mandated by Congress, federal statute or put in place by the 

President, department/agency head, or senior program official: 

a. Applicable law regarding dissemination of information in general: 

(1) The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 

(2) The Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a 

b. Law applicable to VA in particular: 

(1) 38 U.S.C. § 5701—protects confidentiality of records related to veterans' claims, 

confidentiality of names and addresses of veterans and dependents. 

(2) 38 U.S.C. § 5705—protects confidentiality of medical quality assurance records 

(3) 38 U.S.C. § 7332—protects confidentiality of records related to the identity, diagnosis, 

prognosis, or treatment of any patient or subject which are maintained in connection with 

the performance of any program or activity related to drug abuse, alcoholism or alcohol 

abuse, infection with the human immunodeficiency virus, or sickle cell anemia. 

c. VA Regulations: 

(1) 38 CFR. Part 1, §§ 1.460-1.584 (http://www.va.gov/foia/regulations.htm) 

(2) 38 CFR. §§ 14.800-14.810 ("Touhy" regulations) 

(http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr-retrieve.html - page1) 

d. Policies put in place by the President: Executive Orders, including Executive Order 12, 

600, regarding process to be followed when release of confidential commercial 

information under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4) is at issue 

e. Other: 

(1) U.S. Department of Justice Memorandum to Principal FOIA Administrative and Legal 

Contacts at All Federal Agencies (October 4, 1993), regarding "FOIA Policy Memoranda 

Issued by President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno" 

(2) Office of Management and Budget Circular A-110 

6. Maintain web site to include all current, publicly available information. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-179 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

1. Regarding published policies: 

YES, EPA has in place Directive 2100—the Information Resources Management Policy 

Manual. Specifically, Chapter 21, entitled Policy on Public Access to EPA Information, 

establishes the principles governing public access to, and dissemination of, information 

gathered and maintained by EPA. The Agency also has published a set of policies and 

informal guidelines entitled the "WEB Guide" (http://www.epa.gov/webguide/topics.htm). 

The Agency is actively identifying the need for new policies, especially regarding Internet 

dissemination. We are in the process of developing policies regarding Disabled Access 

(Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act), Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and the use of 

Non-EPA servers. A recent policy memorandum on "cookies" will be faxed to you. We 

also continue to review existing policies. We have a public access strategy in development 

that will provide direction and framework for the various components of public access.

There is no EPA policy that mandates publishing public information only in electronic 

mediums and formats. In fact, EPA information may need to be made available in both 

paper and electronic formats to address the needs of public audiences. In many instances, 

printed "fact sheets" are still the most effective way to inform some communities of 

important events related to environmental protection (i.e., public meetings regarding 

cleanup at a hazardous waste site, advisories regarding potential contamination in fish, 

etc.). For databases and large documents, the Agency increasingly relies on electronic 

means. Large documents are typically available in both electronic and paper formats. 

While not advocating discontinuing the publication of information products in paper form, 

a September 23, 1996 memorandum entitled "Public Availability of EPA Information Via 

Internet" (http://www.epa.gov/webguide/get/hansmemo.htm) is a key EPA 

communication. In that memo, Deputy Administrator Hansen stated "the Agency has 

committed to make information from all EPA programs available through the Internet and 

other electronic means that Americans and local organizations can access in their homes, 

schools, and libraries." 

EPA is working to implement the Government Paperwork Elimination Act of 1998 where 

agencies must provide "for the option of electronic maintenance, submission, or disclosure 

of information, when practicable as a substitute for paper" within 5 years. 

2. EPA programs generally follow the policies developed for Agency-wide application as per EPA 

Directive 2100 and the informal guidance in the WEB Guide mentioned in the second part of 

Question 1 above. EPA also has a central Office that directs product review. In addition, EPA's 

Office of Environmental Information is in the process of canvassing EPA Programs and Regional 

offices for current information products and to identify any additional policies that may exist. 

3. Yes, as mentioned above in response to Question 1, EPA has a set of guidelines referred to as the 

WEB Guide (http://www.epa.gov/webguide/topics.htm). Please see the section entitled 

"Publishing on EPA Servers" for additional detail. 

Regarding "old" information, the WEB Guide contains the following: 

"Every Web site on EPA's public access server has the potential to become stale, out of 

date, obsolete, contain dead links or inaccurate information. Periodically Web sites must 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-180 

be reviewed to ensure that only the highest quality information complying with the 

principles of the Web Guide, Product Review Guidance, and other Agency counsel is 

released to the public. In the words of the Chief Information Officer of the Agency, 

information must be 'timely, accurate, integrated, and useful to the public'." 

By requesting to post information on an EPA server, the data owner agrees to be 

responsible for and maintain the information that he/she publishes. Please recognize that 

this informal guideline is not vigorously enforced. 

The EPA Online Rules of Publishing (http://www.epa.gov/webguide/create/rules.htm) 

contain Rules (VII & VIII) that address permanent retention & availability, and archiving. 

Rule VIII contains information on Recordkeeping Requirements. It states "Program 

offices must establish recordkeeping requirements (RKR) for the records they create and 

receive in the course of their official duties. This guide will help program offices improve 

the quality of their documentation."

Records and archiving issues are complicated topics for web publication. This is a subject 

requiring clear policy, which EPA will address in the coming months.

4. At this time, the best way to find EPA public information products on the Internet is to go to the 

website of each Program or Office, or do a search. In most instances, each website has a 

prominent link for "publications" or "information products." While not perfect, these sites are 

much improved from earlier versions. In addition, the Agency is still active in maintaining its 

Government Information Locator System (GILS) for major data systems and public access points. 

The current GILS collection is maintained both through the Government Printing Office and on 

the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/gils/. 

 

EPA and the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) are working together to 

develop an Information Products Bulletin (IPB). An interim version of the bulletin is 

available on EPA's website at (http://www.epa.gov/ipbpages). The IPB will provide a 

comprehensive list of EPA's significant information products under development or major 

modification. The bulletin will also list some of the States' significant information 

products, and in some cases, identify opportunities for stakeholder involvement. The IPB 

has been initiated as one of several efforts by EPA and the States to advance the creation 

and use of data to enhance public health and environmental protection, inform 

decision-making, and improve the public's access to information about environmental 

conditions and trends. The final version of the IPB will be released in March 2001 and it 

will be updated every six months. 

In addition to the web, various EPA programs maintain "800#" hotlines that the public can 

call toll-free to learn about available publications for a particular topic (i.e. radon, Energy 

Star Program, Superfund, etc.) While not comprehensive for the Agency, they are useful 

in providing program-specific information. 

5. EPA is mandated by law to disseminate information. Examples of the various citations where we 

have been directly required to provide its information can be found in a March 1996 

Congressional Research Service Report (this can be provided, if necessary). For example, the 1986 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), provides an infrastructure at 

the state and local levels to plan for chemical emergencies. Facilities that store, use, or release 

certain chemicals, may be subject to various reporting requirements. Reported information is then 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-181 

made publicly available so that interested parties may become informed about potentially 

dangerous chemicals in their community. EPCRA requirements include: 

• Emergency planning notification (EPCRA §302) 

• Emergency release notification (EPCRA §304) 

• Hazardous chemical inventory reporting (EPCRA §§311/312) 

• Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting (EPCRA §313); see 

(http://www.epa.gov/tri/ ) 

In addition, as a result of the Safe Drinking Water Act, reports of water quality are sent 

periodically by local water authorities to consumers with their monthly bills. 

Examples of Agency led initiatives include the Sunwise Program and the Surf Your 

Watershed Program (http://www.epa.gov/sunwise and 

http://www.epa.gov/surf3/sitemap/graphic2.html). 

An example of a recent policy memorandum recently developed by EPA's Office of 

Environmental Information is entitled "Protecting Personal Privacy on EPA's Public 

Access Web Site: Cookies Policy." This policy includes guidance for EPA programs on 

how to ensure that they are protecting the privacy of citizens using EPA web sites. In 

addition, we continue to develop polices as stated above in our response to Question 1, 

namely Section 508, Limited English Proficiency, and the use of Non-EPA servers. 

6. EPA is an Agency comprised of several programs stemming from different statutory authorities 

(i.e., Clean Water Act—Office of Water, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation 

& Liability Act—the Superfund Program, and several others). A very significant challenge for us 

is to integrate the data and information from our various programs. They generate hundreds of 

information products. 

To better support and coordinate the work of these various programs, in 1998, EPA 

created the Office of Environmental Information (OEI). This office helps ensure that EPA 

collects high quality environmental information and makes it available to the American 

public. We provide guidance to assist the agency about the way we collect, manage, 

analyze and provide/allow access to environmental information. 

EPA's Office of Environmental Information: 

• sets goals, develop processes and establishes data standards to enhance environmental data 

and information collection, 

• centrally manages EPA's information technology (IT) policy, infrastructure and oversight 

of federal and agency information technology (IT) statutes, regulations, and standards, 

• develops and implements policies for improving public access to environmental 

information, and 

• oversees EPA's quality-related procedures and policies for environmental programs. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-182 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

1. Yes we do have several written policies on FCC's access and dissemination to the public. FCC has 

had several NPRMs [Notices of Proposed Rulemaking] and Report and Orders on electronic filing 

initiatives. Most of these have been required to make e-filing mandatory. On the other hand, the 

use of the FCC web site, http://www.fcc.gov/, for dissemination of public notices, news releases, 

reports, and Commission orders has been an effort within the Commission to quickly disseminate 

information without written policy to do so, but simply to get information out ASAP. Our site has 

most of these documents dating back to 1994. Look at our site near the bottom for disclaimer 

information http://www.fcc.gov/disclaimers.html

2. The answer to this question is yes, there have been orders released by the Wireless Bureau on 

using the Universal Licensing System (ULS), Mass Media Bureau has done several as well, and so 

have the folks developing the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), which I am responsible 

for, go to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html search the database by putting in 97-113 for the 

proceeding name and the you can view the NPRM, the Comments filed, and the final Order. I 

cannot give you all of the cites for MMB and Wireless. 

3. The FCC web site has never been purged. Individual documents have been replaced if the 

incorrect or substantially wrong document was posted with the correct one. The FCC is sending 

NARA the paper original for records retention purposes. We do plan to send Computer Output 

Microfilm/Microfiche (COM) in lieu of paper in the future, but haven't had the time or resources 

to do so. With NARA incapable of receiving CD/ROM, COM is the next best thing, until then 

FCC will continue to send paper. 

4. FCC did the GILS thing several years ago, but has not really kept it up to date, however, we have 

2 search applications using numbers or subjects to check our site for relevant documents available 

over the internet. 

5. The Auctions activities are required by Congress. The rest have been a significant push by the 

present and previous Chairman to use the Internet for electronic filing and dissemination. Go to 

the following site for a list of our e-filing systems: http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/. 

6. Force NARA to receive agency documents by CD/ROM, electronically transmitted from us to 

them, accept the PDF file format or mandate the file format to use, or leave us alone. Most of our 

initiatives have been for the public to file electronically so that we use less paper. Eventually, we 

will either generate COM to send to NARA, or the records will be incomplete because their 

present requirements for accepting data are so outdated, e.g., 6250 bpi tape, no extraneous 

characters, 7 digit block factor,....please get real. 

Smithsonian Institution 

1. The Smithsonian Institution is a trust established by Congress for the increase and diffusion of 

knowledge. It has no governmental function and was created by Congress to be separate from the 

three branches of government. As such, it has no published policies on government information 

dissemination. 

In the course of fulfilling its mission to increase and diffuse knowledge, however, the 

Institution continually disseminates information through its publication of research results, 

its scholarly and popular publications, its exhibitions, and its public programs, including 

the issuances of the Office of Public Affairs, in addition to the Smithsonian website 

(http://www.si.edu/). Although the Institution is not covered by the Freedom of 

Information Act, it does respond to requests for information from the public. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-183 

No, [there is no letter or other communication from a senior official that mandates the 

discontinuance of publishing an information product in paper form, in favor of utilizing 

electronic mediums and formats]. 

2. The response to Question 1 applies here as well. 

3. There are no Smithsonian-wide guidelines. 

4. Such a listing is available on the Smithsonian website at http://www.si.edu/info/pubs_media.htm. 

5. Pursuant to its charter (specifically, 20 U.S.C.§ 57), the Institution submits to Congress an annual 

report of its operations, expenditures, and conditions. 

6. No response. 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) 

1. The AO is committed to providing information to the public in a useful and timely fashion. This is 

done through the AO's Internet site (http://www.uscourts.gov/), publications, news releases, 

phone, fax, and other vehicles and methods of communication. Many, if not all, of the most 

frequently requested publications are available through this web site. They include The Third 

Branch, Understanding the Federal Courts, the Judicial Business of the United States Courts, and 

numerous other matters of public interest. In addition, the AO's Internet site is a gateway to federal 

court information nationwide and to many other court-related sites. Not only does the AO's 

Internet site link to all federal court web sites, it also provides Internet access to the Public Access 

to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system. In addition, the AO and the entire federal judiciary 

constantly explore more efficient and effective ways to conduct business and to make more 

information electronically accessible to the public. 

2. The AO's Office of Public Affairs (OPAF) is the point of contact for communications with the 

news media. OPAF also manages the AO's Internet site. While OPAF has much contact with the 

general public, certainly other AO offices also have a need to work with select public audiences. 

3. The AO's Office of Public Affairs (OPAF) monitors the AO's Internet site and regularly updates 

materials and publications. Press releases, new publications, proposed changes to rules of 

procedure used by lawyers who practice in federal courts, and various new reports are routinely 

added to the web site. Some of the more time-sensitive information, such as job vacancy 

announcements and requests for comments on proposed revisions of rules of practice and 

procedure, are removed automatically after their closing date. 

4. The AO produces a Publications Catalog which includes notations if the publication is available in 

electronic format. In addition, the Internet site's search capabilities provide for easy identification 

of public information products. 

5. The Rules Enabling Act (28 U.S.C. 2071-2077) requires the wide public dissemination of 

proposed changes to the rules of practice and procedure used by lawyers who practice in federal 

court. While the AO has published and continues to publish proposed amendments to the rules in 

the Federal Register, last year the same material was, for the first time, published on the AO's web 

site. This has enabled a broader audience to have access to this information. Comments about the 

proposed amendments also have been received via e-mail to this web site. In addition, information 

is provided about past and future meetings of the Judicial Conference committees with 

responsibility for rules of practice and procedure in the federal courts. Also, potential contractors 

can read Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for competitive procurement matters over the AO's 

Internet site. Additionally, the enclosed Publications Catalog indicates which publications are 

required by statute. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-184 

6. The AO has a long-standing commitment to providing public information to interested parties, 

within the context of legal constrictions on the release of certain information. While the AO has no 

recommendations for strengthening existing laws and policies at this time, it wishes to have an 

opportunity to comment on any proposed changes, especially as they may be related to limits on 

existing resources. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-185 

APPENDIX 28. SURVEY OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION NEEDS OF 

DISADVANTAGED AND SPECIAL POPULATIONS 

In early September 2000, NCLIS conducted an informal survey of 9 organizations that 

represent, or advocate on behalf of, special populations including disabled or 

disadvantaged individuals to determine their policies, programs and practices relating 

to public information dissemination. The survey instrument and the survey results are 

provided below. 

NCLIS SURVEY OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION NEEDS OF 

DISADVANTAGED AND SPECIAL POPULATIONS125

Conducted by F. Woody Horton and Sarah T. Kadec, NCLIS Consultants 

SURVEY INSTRUMENT126

Several committees of the U.S. Congress have asked the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and 

Information Science (NCLIS) to recommend reforms to the Nation's laws, policies, programs, and 

practices governing the dissemination of government information to the public. The study comes about 

essentially because of the advent of the World Wide Web, and the rapidly accelerating federal agency 

actions to migrate their government information products for the public from ink-on-paper formats and 

mediums to the new electronic formats and mediums, especially the Internet. The Government 

Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), recently enacted by the Congress and signed into law, also 

mandates the transferal of transactions between the government and the people from traditional paperbased to electronic modes. 

The Commission is already deeply into this study, and is very pleased to be receiving the active 

participation and involvement of a great many information and policy experts, associations, library 

groups, public interest groups, and others; four panels and a Board of Experts have been at work since 

late June. A final report will be sent to the Congress and the President by December 15, 2000. 

Background on the study can be found at www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.html. 

One of the most important "stakeholder groups" that heavily depends on government information are 

what are sometimes called "special need clientele" organizations, or, in other cases, organizations that 

represent memberships that are "disadvantaged" or handicapped in one respect or another. For 

example, memberships comprised of individuals or groups which are, in some manner, physically, 

emotionally, financially handicapped, or by virtue of their remote residency (e.g. rural areas), or by 

virtue of their minority status (e.g. gender, age, race, religion, ethnicity, etc.) unable to identify, much 

less search online and retrieve the information once found, the government information resources they 

need to cope with their special information needs or their particular disadvantages or handicaps. In 

both cases, the associations or societies which represent such individuals and/or groups have special 

information needs that are not otherwise being fully and adequately served by normally available 

 

125 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen28.pdf. 126 The survey instrument is also available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/special.html. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-186 

public information services. Congress wants to know what changes are needed to strengthen its public 

information infrastructure to better serve them. 

We are contacting you to ask for your assistance in a survey which we are conducting of a crosssection sampling of just a few associations, societies, and similar groups whose memberships and/or 

constituencies fall within one of the above categories. Woody Horton and Sarah Kadec are cocoordinating this study. If neither of them, nor Judy Russell, the NCLIS Deputy Director, has already 

contacted you, they soon will. However, please feel free at any time to telephone Horton or Russell at 

202-606-9200. Kadec can be reached at (757) 259-0358. 

We are asking you to do two things. 

First, we would like to know about any published information or literature that deals with this 

challenge. Perhaps, for example, an article has been recently written that is published in either book or 

journal article form by one of your own members, for which you can provide us a citation. Or perhaps 

your organization has a web site which has such information available and accessible through the 

Internet, in which case we would also appreciate learning the URL address. 

Second, we would like you to respond to the following questions and, if you provide a "yes" answer to 

any of them, kindly furnish us with a hard copy of the material (or call our attention to the web site 

containing the information if it is in electronic form): 

1. Does your organization have any published policies and/or programs for providing government 

information (federal, state, local, or tribal) to your membership (e.g. how to access such 

information, where to go, whom to see, and so forth)? 

2. What information do you not now receive from government that your membership/clientele often 

need or want? 

3. What kind of government information resources does your association, society, or other kind of 

organization, most heavily depend on to meet the needs of its membership/clientele? 

4. What changes in the government's laws, policies, programs, or practices governing the 

dissemination of information to the public might you recommend, which NCLIS, in turn, might be 

able to recommend to the President and the Congress in its final report? 

In addition to the above, perhaps you would be interested in writing a special 'white paper' for the 

Commission's study. We could then provide the paper to our Panel 3, which is dealing with the 

information needs of the various individuals and groups outside of government, such as yours. Perhaps 

you have a "success story" to tell us, where your group has established a creative or innovative 

information service, system, or network to help its members search for, find, and then obtain and use 

government information. We would like to know about such a valuable resource so that we might, 

through our final report, share the idea with others. 

We would much appreciate receiving this information by October 1st, or even earlier if possible, 

because of our very tight study deadline. Electronic responses can be sent to whorton@nclis.gov. 

Faxed responses can be sent to (202) 606-9203. Mailed responses should be sent to the below address. 

The Commission wishes to thank you in advance for your willingness to assist us in this important 

endeavor. We believe the final results could be very valuable to you and your memberships/clienteles. 

US NCLIS 

1110 Vermont Avenue, N 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-187 

Suite 820 

Washington, DC 20005-3552 

SURVEY RESPONSES FROM ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS 

Introductory Note

As a part of its effort to examine government public information dissemination, NCLIS believed that it 

was absolutely necessary to be very concerned with those individuals and groups in the general 

population who may have physical, emotional, or other problems in searching for, retrieving, or using 

government information available to them electronically. Sometimes the problems were directly 

related to a disability condition. Sometimes the problems were related to geographic location, such as 

rural Americans. Sometimes the problems had to do with state-of-the-art of the technologies being 

employed that are as yet inadequate to fully and effectively deal with the problem. 

Nine different groups were contacted. They represented two types of organizations: 

• The organization, such as a professional association, either was a direct membership society which 

represented a certain disadvantaged group and its membership counted those individuals in its 

ranks as members. 

• The organization was not a direct membership kind of group, but, rather, worked toward the 

resolution of the problems of a certain disadvantaged group through lobbying and other public 

interest activities, or through other means such as leveraging financial resources, through 

philanthropic activities, and so forth. 

Responses were received from seven of the nine groups contacted. Several of the groups did not reply 

specifically to the four questions, but, instead, discussed various critical issues that they believed that 

their clienteles face in accessing government information in electronic form. Both the responses to the 

NCLIS questions, and their comments, are summarized below. 

Summary of Responses

1. Does your organization have any published policies and/or programs for providing government 

information (federal, state, local, or tribal) to your membership (e.g. how to access such 

information, where to go, whom to see, and so forth)? 

American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR).

127 Currently collaborating on the development 

of RADAR (Focused Research and Reporting on Critical Development Disability Issues), with biweekly "Radar" reports in an online data warehouse. The system is similar to one at the Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administrations (SAMHSA). 

Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons (AARP).

128 Maintains the Ageline database of 

articles and book summaries. This database is licensed to several search services, and it will be added 

to the AARP web site later this year. AARP seeks to inform citizens of government benefits through 

its Public Benefits Outreach. 

 

127 Its website is at http://207.201.142.179/index.shtml. 128 Its website is at http://www.aarp.org/. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-188 

Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind (CLB).

129 This organization is concerned with visually impaired 

people and particularly their ability to find employment. It has entered a strategic partnership with the 

Colorado-based audio bookstore ReelBooks Internet Inc., to develop an e-commerce business operated 

by employees who are blind and visually impaired. ReelBooks.com provides online training and 

employment opportunities. Its employees receive hands-on training in Internet technology, technical 

support, and customer service. 

National Library Service (NLS) for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (within the Library of 

Congress).

130 Yes, the NLS Collection Building policy, including discussion of the NLS' responsibility 

for making library materials available for the blind and physically handicapped U.S. citizens living in 

the U.S. or abroad. 

National Organization on Disabilities (NOD).

131 Discussions are underway to develop a program to 

reach business and volunteer groups needing information on how to most effectively serve people with 

disabilities. 

Self Help for Hard of Hearing People Within the National Center on Assistive Technologies 

(SHHHP).

132 No input. 

TDI.

133 No input. 

2. What information do you not now receive from government that your membership/clientele often 

need or want? 

AAMR. Information on key issues relating to developmental disabilities (abuse, housing, aging, 

employment, and transportation). 

AARP. No input. 

CLB. Information on e-commerce and acquiring valuable career skills that increase future job 

marketability. 

NLS. Public popular consumer information documents that come from various federal agencies, and 

time-sensitive documents. 

NOD. Information on the "how-to" part of disability work. 

SHHHP. No input. 

TDI. Anything and everything must have sound, text, or captions to meet the needs of those who are 

deaf, hard of hearing, late-deafened or deaf-blind. This includes streaming videos and web sites that 

"talk," etc. 

 

129 Its website is at http://www.clb.org/. 130 Its website is at http://lcweb.loc.gov/nls/nls.html. 131 Its website is at http://www.nod.org/. 132 Its website is at http://www.shhh.org/. 133 TDI was formerly known as Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. Its website is at http://www.tdi-online.org/. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-189 

3. What kind of government information resources does your association, society, or other kind of 

organization most heavily depend on to meet the needs of its membership/clientele? 

AAMR. Vital policy, financial, research, and service information on issues and trends in mental health 

and substance abuse services. 

AARP. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid information is obtained through AARP web site links 

to government and other sites. 

CLB. No input. 

NLS. Public popular consumer information documents, and research and statistical information from 

various federal information referral centers. 

NOD. Basics on the ADA and other legislation. 

SHHHP. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. – Electronic and Information Technology, and 

guidance on accessible web sites included in the WWW Consortium. 

TDI. No input. 

4. What changes in the government's laws, policies, programs, or practices governing the 

dissemination of government information to the public might you recommend, which NCLIS, in 

turn, might be able to recommend to the President and the Congress in its final report? 

AAMR. No input. 

AARP. Move from offering simple, passive access to government information to actively getting it 

into the hands of individual who need it. Resolution of the problem of degradability and technical 

vulnerability of information in electronic formats. An agency of government should implement 

solutions to the impermanence of digital information. Universal access is necessary before government 

can cease traditional publishing efforts, the situation will improve, but not necessarily for everyone in 

society. 

CLB. Support for providing employment opportunities for the blind and visually impaired residents of 

the Washington, D.C. area. 

NLS. Of the government information readily available to the public, how much of it is in accessible 

formats such as audiotape, Braille, and computer diskettes for special needs population. The federal 

government should have an office where any agency could get training on providing accessible 

formats, specialized software they need to adapt it to their needs, and the monthly charges imposed for 

access. 

NOD. Web-based way to search through government materials that have to do with the "how-to" part 

of disability work. 

SHHHP. No input. 

TDI. No input. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-190 

Additional Notes important to these groups include: 

The NLS provided the following comments based on a document entitled Computer and Internet Use 

Among People with Disabilities, published by the Disability Statistics Center, University of California, 

San Francisco.134 People with disabilities perhaps stand to gain the most from the new technologies, 

which are important tools with which to gain greater independence and social integration, yet they 

have among the lowest rates of use. Many are poor and cannot afford a computer capable of 

navigating the Internet. There is a need for lower-cost computing and access, simpler user interfaces, 

and a concerted program of education along with training and support in the use of hardware and 

software. 

SHHHP referred the Commission to the Target Center at the Department of Agriculture, where free 

workshops on accessibility and the Internet are provided. Specifically the Commission was reminded 

of a Section 508 workshop at the IDEAS Conference held at the Department. 

Detailed Responses

American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR). 

We have just received a grant of national significance to establish "RADAR:" 

Radar Project Summary/Abstract 

AAMR, a credible, well-respected organization concerned about intellectual and other developmental 

disabilities, will collaborate with The Lewin Group, (TLG), an experienced, respected, international 

health care consulting firm with proven competence in database development and management, to 

develop RADAR: Focused Research and Reporting on Critical Developmental Disability Issues. The 

RADAR System will be modeled after a similar system that was developed by TLG for the Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The SAMHSA system has been 

operating for three years and provides the agency with vital policy, financial, research, and service 

information on issues and trends in mental health and substance abuse services. 

AAMR and TLG firmly believe our entire network would benefit greatly, if similar information were 

available to all stakeholders in the mental 

retardation/developmental disabilities network. Furthermore, implementation of the Roadmap to the 

Future demands the capacity to identify and track developmental disabilities issues, activities, and 

trends at the national, state, and local levels. 

The AAMR/Lewin Team will work with all developmental disability stakeholders to develop the 

content of the RADAR "early alert" Internet database system. Representatives from the developmental 

disabilities network, including individuals with disabilities and family members, will form a RADAR 

Advisory Council to guide development of keywords and provide overall project monitoring. 

RADAR activities in the first year will focus on designing, testing and building the online Data 

Warehouse. On a weekly basis RADAR personnel will monitor the general news media and specific 

trade press related to developmental disabilities to collect nationwide information on key issues. A few 

examples of potential issues to be tracked include abuse, housing, aging, employment, and 

transportation. The information, gathered from more than 150 sources, will be summarized into bi-

 

134 H. Stephen Kaye, Disability and the Digital Divide, Abstract 22, San Francisco: Disability Statistics Center, University of 

California, San Francisco, July 2000; http://www.dsc.ucsf.edu/UCSF/pdf/ABSTRACT22.pdf.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-191 

weekly "RADAR" reports, which will be stored in the online Data Warehouse. All stakeholders, even 

the general public, will be able to access the Data Warehouse via the Internet. They will be able 

review the current report or search past entries. At the end of the first year of the RADAR initiative, 

the database content, ease of access and system utilization will be evaluated. In the second year, the 

technological accessibility for individuals with disabilities and their families will be reviewed. 

With Advisory Council input, necessary modifications will be made to the RADAR System. In the 

third year, database content should be substantive and RADAR personnel will be able to focus on data 

mapping and trend analyses while continuing data collection activities. 

Prepared by: 

Doreen Croser, AAMR 

Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons (AARP). 

I have asked some of my colleagues to respond to different parts of your memo, so you may be 

receiving some additional material by email related to your information request. 

My own responses in this memo should be taken as my own opinions, not necessarily reflective of 

official AARP policy. 

As a former government documents librarian (at the regional depository library at the University of 

Maryland, College Park) I strongly support your inquiry into ways of improving the dissemination of 

U.S. government information to the public. The depository library system, laudable for the intentions 

behind it and for the hard effort invested in it, really has not resulted in universal public use (as 

opposed to access) of federal information resources; nor has that system been effective at including all 

U.S. government publications within its scope. Many of those publications are in fact only available 

through commercial products that supplement depository library collections (such as the CIS 

Index\Abstracts microfiche collections). The searchability and home access that the Internet makes 

possible allows for the government to move from offering simple, passive access to government 

information to actively getting it into the hands of individuals who need it. 

That said, the problem of the degradability and technical vulnerability of information in electronic 

formats has still not been resolved. Some depository libraries have government documents in paper 

copy that were produced in the early 1800s. In contrast, the digital formats of the 1960s and 1970s--

including IBM punch cards--are unreadable by the common computing hardware in use today. The 

economic incentive for government agencies to move from print to electronic publishing formats is 

strong, as is the benefit of searchability and timeliness that comes with digital information. Archiving 

that information for future reference, however, is complicated by the fact that magnetic media decay 

and digital formats and hardware change unpredictably. Is there any agency of government prepared to 

find and implement solutions to the impermanence of digital information? 

An additional problem is that access to digital information is by no means universal yet throughout the 

U.S. and the world. The savings occur if government can cease traditional publishing efforts in favor 

of digital ones, but that will inevitably mean closing off access to government information to large 

areas of the citizenry. Aside from the issue of the cost of computer ownership and communication, 

there is the issue of training in the use of computers as information machines. Most of us learn to read 

in school, and many of us can do so with no more complicated "hardware" than our eyes. Moving 

entirely to digital information means making information access and use dependent upon a high level 

of education, facility in using computer hardware that continues to change from year to year, and the 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-192 

money and savvy to either have the equipment at home or know how to get at it conveniently. 

Granted, this situation will improve--but not necessarily for everyone in our society. 

The organization for which I currently work, AARP, is deeply involved with advocacy and 

information programs around Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid issues, among others. Our own 

Web site links to government and other sites related to these issues. Interpreting the issues and details 

surrounding these programs is one of the things AARP seeks to do in its own publications and 

programs. 

Public Benefits Outreach, in which the organization seeks to inform senior citizens of government 

benefits for which they may be eligible but of which they may be unaware, is another of AARP's 

concerns. 

After today I will be out of the office until October 3rd, so, unfortunately, I will not be able to respond 

to any follow-up questions you may have about this response. 

Prepared by Hugh O'Connor 

Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons 

Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind (CLB) 

(From Digital Voices -- September 25, 2000) 

Region's New Economy Can't Exclude the Blind and Visually Impaired 

As the president and chief executive officer of an organization providing programs and services to 

20,000 visually impaired people in the Washington, D.C. area, I find it staggering that, even in the 

face of the current labor shortage, 70 percent of blind, working age adults in the United States remain 

unemployed. Initiatives designed to improve this unacceptably high unemployment rate and bridge the 

"digital divide" are urgently needed ["Initiatives for Disabled Unveiled," National News, September 

22]. 

Recent advances in adaptive and assistive technology, such as screen magnification software and 

software that converts text into speech, can help to bridge this divide. Assistive technology is 

revolutionizing professional opportunities for the blind and visually impaired community, specifically 

in the communications and information services industry. This technology enables individuals who are 

experiencing vision loss to acquire and retain the skills necessary to achieve economic independence 

and allows visually impaired persons attempting to re-enter the workforce to develop marketable 

career skills. People who are blind and visually impaired can turn to the Columbia Lighthouse for the 

Blind to receive training in this technology. 

In order to demonstrate to other local employers how easily, effectively and efficiently this technology 

can be integrated into the workplace, the Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind recently entered into a 

strategic partnership with the Colorado-based audio bookstore Reel Books Internet, Inc., to develop an 

e-commerce business that is operated by employees who are blind and visually impaired. 

The resulting website, ReelBooks.com, is an online audio bookstore designed to provide training and 

employment opportunities consistent with the region's "new economy." In addition to learning about ecommerce and acquiring valuable career skills that increase their future job marketability, the blind 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-193 

and visually impaired employees working for ReelBooks.com receive hands-on training in internetdriven technology, technical support and customer service. 

The ultimate goal of this venture is to provide savvy, well-trained employees to other tech companies 

in the Washington, DC area, as well as to offer valuable retail service in the rapidly expanding market 

of audio books. 

The official launch of ReelBooks.com will be held on Capitol Hill Thursday, September 28 from 5:00 

- 7:00 p.m. in room B-369 of the Rayburn House Office Building. I invite Members of Congress, local 

business and community leaders and the residents of the Washington, DC area to attend the launch and 

show their support for providing employment opportunities for the blind and visually impaired 

residents of the metropolitan Washington, DC area. 

Prepared by: 

Dale Otto 

President & CEO 

Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind 

National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS) 

1. Does your organization have any published policies and/or programs for providing government 

information (federal, state, local, or tribal) to your membership (e.g. how to access such 

information, where to go, whom to see, and so forth)? 

Yes, we have enclosed a copy of the NLS Collection Building policy and other related documents. We 

also included Sources of Braille Reading Material and NBA Suggestions for Producing Large Print 

Materials, 2000. 

2. What information do you not now receive from government that your membership/clientele often 

need or want? 

Public popular consumer information documents that come from various federal agencies and timesensitive documents. 

 

3. What kind of government information resources does your association, society, or other kind of 

organization, most heavily depend on to meet the needs of its membership/clientele? 

Public popular consumer information documents that come from various federal agencies, and 

research and statistical information from various federal information/referral centers. 

4. What changes in the government's laws, policies, programs, or practices governing the 

dissemination of information to the public might you recommend, which NCLIS, in turn, might be 

able to recommend to the President and the Congress in its final report? 

The questions that we would ask you to pose "If it's readily available to the public, how are you 

providing it in special format? Who is the person to contact who will help provide the special format 

material for the various agencies? We would ask you to consider recommending: 

• that a contact always be trained to help each agency; 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-194 

• that the reforms include flexibility to allow for the dissemination of government information in 

accessible formats such as audiotape, braille and computer diskettes on an as needed basis for 

special needs population; and 

• that the federal government always have an office where any agency can get training on providing 

accessible formats. For example, the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives have a special 

information needs office that helps each senator and representative respond to clients. Somewhere 

there should be an office to liaison with all executive department agencies to assure training and to 

help the agencies respond to special needs populations. 

Finally, the passage of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act will make accessing government 

information via the Internet easier and more feasible for special needs populations, especially those 

with visual impairments. However, we encourage your committee to take note of a statement from the 

document Computer and Internet Use Among People with Disabilities published by Disability 

Statistics Center University of California, San Francisco: 

People with disabilities are perhaps the single segment of society with the most to gain from 

the new technologies of the electronic age. Yet they have among the lowest rates of use of 

these technologies. As a result, the potential benefits of computers and the Internet to the 

disability community are a long way from being realized. 

The problem is largely one of access. Many people with disabilities are poor and can little 

afford a computer capable of navigating the Internet, the specialized software they might need 

in order to adapt it to their needs, and the monthly charges imposed for access to the Internet. 

Many people with disabilities, whether elderly or not, lack an awareness of the potential 

benefits of this technology, an understanding that, for themselves especially, a computer and 

an Internet connection could become not a toy, but an important tool with which to gain 

greater independence and social integration. 

The advent of lower-cost computing--including the free computers that come with an extended 

subscription to an Internet service provider--may help to make this technology more available. 

Simpler user interfaces, 

which would encourage use by people who are less comfortable with the technology, might 

also help people with disabilities to overcome any resistance they might have to exploring the 

Internet. But it seems clear that, in order to clarify the benefits that this technology can offer to 

the population with disabilities, a concerted program of education will be needed, along with 

training and support in the use of the hardware and software, before significant progress is 

made in closing the enormous gaps in technology access that have been identified in this 

report. 

The full report is available from Disability Statistics Center, University of California, San Francisco, 

Box 0646, Laurel Heights 3333 California Street, San Francisco, CA 94143-0646 or from their 

website: <http://www.dsc.ucsf.edu/>. 

Prepared by (Mrs.) Freddie L. Peaco, 

Government Information/Volunteer Specialist 

National Organization on Disabilities (NOD) 

I've asked a couple of people in the office now, and the general consensus is that we don't have the 

appropriate experience attempting to locate government publications for any specific constituency to 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-195 

answer your survey. we are not of grass-roots organization -- and thus have relatively little contact 

with people from "disadvantaged communities". We are in the process of attempting to become more 

Web focused ourselves, however, and there is some discussion about trying to access materials that 

certain constituencies might have a need for, and link to them from a central location. If we did so, the 

constituencies that we would primarily be trying to reach are business and volunteer groups, looking 

for information on how they can work most effectively to serve people with disabilities, as well as get 

the basics on the ADA and other legislation. That said, we would love to have an easy, Web-based, 

way to search through government materials -- especially materials that have to do more with the 

"how-to" part of disability work. 

Sorry that we cannot help you further. Other groups you might consider contacting are The American 

Association of People with Disabilities, the American Association of Retarded Citizens (the Arc) --

they have a governmental affairs office here in D.C. 

Prepared by Taylor Hines 

National Organization on Disabilities 

SHHH National Center on Assistive Technologies 

Thank you for contacting the "stakeholder" group of people with disabilities. I represent people with 

hearing loss via SHHH (Self Help for Hard of Hearing People). I will give you a quick answer now 

and perhaps we can respond in depth later. 

I recommend that you go to the Access Board website and read as much as you can about rules for 

Section 508 of the Rehab Act—Electronic and Information Technology, which includes federal 

government obligations regarding your WWW questions. I also recommend that you specifically visit 

the website of the World Wide Web Consortium regarding guidance for accessible web sites. Please 

let me know if you can't find these websites. 

Prepared by David Baquis, Director 

SHHH National Center on Assistive Technology 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-196 

APPENDIX 29. PUBLIC INFORMATION RESOURCES MAPS 

Compiled by the Federal Library and Information Center Committee (FLICC) and the 

Government Documents Roundtable (GODORT) of the American Library 

Association (ALA).135

The public information resources maps are listed on the Commission website at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.html, under 4. Panel and Board of Experts 

Communications. 

Public information resources maps are intended to portray in graphic, tabular style most of the key 

elements or attributes that are associated with each government information product, such as its 

official name, the parent/owning agency, statutory authority for the product, beneficiaries of the 

product, and so forth. The essential idea is to use a "bird's eye view" approach to underscore the 

richness and diversity of information that could be captured and recorded in a database if such a 

format were regularly and systematically prepared when products are first created. The format might 

then be updated if and when there are significant changes in any of the attributes, such as terms and 

conditions governing its availability and cost (if not free). While the Commission stopped short of 

recommending such a "standard graphic format" be prepared for all products, it will keep the 

possibility of utilizing such a format in front of it as it proceeds with additional studies and 

investigations. 

In particular, a review of the entries under Distributors, Financing and Fee/Free indicates the variety of 

mechanisms employed even in such a small sample of public information resources. For example, of 

the 23 responses, 14 identify appropriations as the sole source of funding; 7 cite a combination of 

appropriations and user fees from sales by the agency, GPO, NTIS, a contractor or a commercial 

publisher, and 2 are entirely self-funding through user fees. 

• Those funded solely by appropriations. All that respond to the Free/Fee category have some free 

access. The Statistical Abstract from the Department of Commerce does not include all of the 

tables from the paper and CD-ROM editions that are sold by NTIS, GPO and the Bureau of the 

Census. 

• Those with a combination of user fees and appropriations. All have free public access at least 

through the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), and several through an agency website 

as well. The products sold directly by the publishing agencies (Census, USGS) are available for 

free public access through the FDLP, as are those sold by contractors or commercial publishers 

(National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Environmental Health). 

• Those that are self-funding. STAT-USA from the Department of Commerce is required by statute 

to be self-funding, but still provides two passwords to each federal depository library to ensure 

free public access. Only the General Wage Determination Guidelines, which is published by NTIS 

on behalf of the Department of Labor, has no free public access, even through the FDLP. Like 

STAT-USA, NTIS is required by statute to be self-funding. 

 

135 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen29.pdf. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-197 

Department of Commerce

Agency 

Owner vs. Custodian

Department of Commerce, Bureau 

of the Census 

Department of Commerce, Bureau 

of the Census

Resource Name 

Type(s), Format(s), 

Mediums

Decennial Census (Paper, CD-ROM, 

Online) 

Statistical Abstract of the United 

States Paper (since 1878), CD-ROM 

(since 1993), Internet access at 

http://www.census.gov/statab/www/

Authority 

Laws, Agency 

Regulations, OMB 

Policies 

U.S. Constitution 

Beneficiaries 

(Users), Internal vs. 

External, Public vs. 

Private, Foreign 

Internal, External: Local, State, Tribal 

Government: Citizens, Foreign 

All users – internal and externalpublic, private, foreign 

Sources of Data 

Content 

Survey 80+ federal agencies plus 126 nongovernment organizations 

Value-Added 

Contributions 

Analysts, Brokers, 

Librarians, 

Statisticians, Other 

Specialists 

All CIS Statistical Universe

Distributors 

In-house vs. 

Contract, Other 

Agencies 

Printed through GPO, CD distributed 

to FDLP through GPO, sold through 

Census 

GPO, NTIS, Resellers (Bernan), CIS 

Statistical Universe

Financing 

Appropriations, 

Revolving Fund, 

User Fee 

Appropriations Appropriations

Fee/Free 

Terms and 

Conditions, Amount 

Paper and CD free through Federal 

Depository Libraries; Paper for sale 

via GPO SuDocs, CD for sale by 

Census; online access free from 

Census website 

Internet (free) does not include all 

tables in print due to copyright; paper 

$34 (NTIS) to $49 (GPO); CD-ROM 

$50 (GPO, NTIS, Census)
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-198 

Agency 

Owner vs. Custodian

Department of Commerce, 

Economics and Statistics 

Administration, Stat-USA 

Resource Name 

Type(s), Format(s), 

Mediums

USA Trade/NTDB (National Trade 

Data Bank) 

Authority 

Laws, Agency 

Regulations, OMB 

Policies 

1988 Omnibus Trade & 

Competitiveness Act 

Beneficiaries 

(Users), Internal vs. 

External, Public vs. 

Private, Foreign 

Internal/External; Public/Private/ 

Foreign 

Sources of Data 

Content 

Census Bureau and other federal 

agencies 

Value-Added 

Contributions 

Analysts, Brokers, 

Librarians, 

Statisticians, Other 

Specialists 

Stat-USA 

Distributors 

In-house vs. 

Contract, Other 

Agencies 

Agency direct access or through 

license agreements

Financing 

Appropriations, 

Revolving Fund, 

User Fee 

Self-supporting per 15 USC 1527a 

Fee/Free 

Terms and 

Conditions, Amount 

Depository Libraries receive two 

passwords; subscription based on IP 

range $400 minimum (class C) to 

$2750 (class B) some consortial 

discounts; http://www.statusa.gov/ 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-199 

Department of Defense

Agency 

Owner vs. Custodian

Dept of the Army, Chief, Public 

Affairs 

Resource Name 

Type(s), Format(s), 

Mediums

Soldiers Magazine: the Official U.S. 

Army Magazine, Published monthly 

in paper and at 

<www.dtic.mil/soldiers> 

Authority 

Laws, Agency 

Regulations, OMB 

Policies 

AR 25-30: "use of funds for printing 

the publication was approved by the 

Secretary of the Army on Sept 2,1986 

in accordance with provisions of AR 

25-30"

Beneficiaries 

(Users) Internal vs. 

External, Public vs. 

Private, Foreign 

Internal users... (focus on enlisted 

soldiers and non-commissioned 

officers). Also has a public affairs 

mission. 

Sources of Data 

Content 

Unless otherwise indicated and except 

for 'by permission' and copyrighted 

items, materials may be reprinted 

provided credit is given to Soldiers 

Magazine and the author. All 

photographs by U.S. Army except as 

otherwise noted. 

Value-Added 

Contributions 

Analysts, Brokers, 

Librarians, 

Statisticians, Other 

Specialists 

Public Affairs Specialists, Journalists, 

Photojournalists

Distributors 

In-house vs. Contract, 

Other Agencies 

In-house distribution of print from 

U.S. Army Distribution Operations 

Facility St Louis, MO; Website 

maintained for U.S. Army by DTIC; 

(DoD Agency); Defense Technical 

Information Center, Ft. Belvoir, VA 

Financing 

Appropriations, 

Revolving Fund, 

User Fee 

Appropriated funds 

Fee/Free 

Terms and 

Conditions, Amount 

Free access to web site; free 

distribution of print copies within 

DoD; individual subscriptions 

available via GPO SuDocs; free 

through Federal Depository Libraries 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-200 

Agency 

Owner vs. Custodian

Department of the Air Force, Office 

of Public Affairs, Air Force News 

Agency (AFNEWS) 

Department of the Air Force 

Resource Name 

Type(s), Format(s), 

Mediums

Airman Magazine: magazine of 

America's Air Force; published 

monthly in hard copy and on the web 

at <www.af.mil/news/airman> 

Airpower Journal; published 

quarterly in hard copy and on the web 

at: Aerospace Power Journal 

<http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil

> 

Authority 

Laws, Agency 

Regulations, OMB 

Policies 

Secretary of the Air Force. Secretary of the Air Force 

Beneficiaries 

(Users), Internal vs. 

External, Public vs. 

Private, Foreign 

Internal users... (focus on enlisted 

airmen and non-commissioned 

officers). Also has a public affairs 

mission. 

"Designed to serve as an open forum 

for the presentation and stimulation of 

innovative thinking on military 

doctrine, strategy..." 

Sources of Data 

Content 

"All pictures are USAF photos unless 

otherwise identified" 

"articles may be reproduced with 

permission" Aerospace Power Journal 

International, Book & Video 

Reviews, Air University Review, 

Contrails, etc. 

Value-Added 

Contributions 

Analysts, Brokers, 

Librarians, 

Statisticians, Other 

Specialists 

Public Affairs Specialists, Journalists, 

Photojournalists 

Editors, Historians, Public Affairs 

Specialists 

Distributors 

In-house vs. Contract, 

Other Agencies 

Air force maintained website. Air Force maintained website; 

"...provided as a public service. 

Government personnel and the 

general public may use this system to 

review and retrieve publicly available 

government information...selected 

elements are subject to access 

restrictions that are identified in 

parentheses next to the data link". 

Financing 

Appropriations, 

Revolving Fund, 

User Fee 

Appropriated funds Appropriated funds. 

Fee/Free 

Terms and 

Conditions, Amount 

Free access to web site; free 

distribution of print copies within 

DoD; individual subscriptions 

available via GPO SuDocs; free 

through Federal Depository Libraries 

Free access to web site; free 

distribution of print copies within 

DoD; individual subscriptions 

available via GPO SuDocs; free 

through Federal Depository Libraries 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-201 

Department of Energy

Agency 

Owner vs. Custodian

Department of Energy Department of Energy 

Resource Name 

Type(s), Format(s), 

Mediums

EDBWeb (Bibliographic Electronic 

Internet) 

PUBScience (Bibliographic 

Electronic Internet) 

Authority 

Laws, Agency 

Regulations, OMB 

Policies 

DOE Organic Act, GPRA DOE G 

241.1-1 DOE O 241.1

DOE Organic Act, GPRA DOE G 

241.1-1 DOE O 241.1

Beneficiaries 

(Users), Internal vs. 

External, Public vs. 

Private, Foreign 

All All 

Sources of Data 

Content 

DOE, DOE contractors, other 

government agencies, professional 

societies, IEA, ETDE 

Peer-reviewed journal literature 

Value-Added 

Contributions 

Analysts, Brokers, 

Librarians, 

Statisticians, Other 

Specialists 

 

Distributors 

In-house vs. Contract, 

Other Agencies 

OSTI (in-house); Commercially 

available via DIALOG

OSTI (in-house); GPO

Financing 

Appropriations, 

Revolving Fund, 

User Fee 

Appropriation, User fee Appropriation 

Fee/Free 

Terms and 

Conditions, Amount 

Free; Subscriber fee Free 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-202 

Agency 

Owner vs. Custodian

Department of Energy Department of Energy Office of 

Management and Administration 

(M&A)

Resource Name 

Type(s), Format(s), 

Mediums

PrePrint Network; Full Text 

Electronic Internet 

DOE Directives; Electronic Database, 

Graphical Internet Site (WWW) 

Authority 

Laws, Agency 

Regulations, OMB 

Policies 

 

Beneficiaries 

(Users) Internal vs. 

External, Public vs. 

Private, Foreign 

All DOE Employees 

Sources of Data 

Content 

Government, academic institutions, 

professional societies, private 

research organizations, individual 

researchers 

Dept. of Energy, Office of 

Management and Administration 

(M&A) 

Value-Added 

Contributions 

Analysts, Brokers, 

Librarians, 

Statisticians, Other 

Specialists 

Most Documents Available Full-Text 

in PDF and Other Formats 

Distributors 

In-house vs. Contract, 

Other Agencies 

DOE/OSTI (in-house) DOE/M&A (in-house) 

Financing 

Appropriations, 

Revolving Fund, 

User Fee 

Appropriation Appropriation 

Fee/Free 

Terms and 

Conditions, Amount 

Free Free 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-203 

Agency 

Owner vs. Custodian

Department of Energy (OSTI) Department of Energy (OSTI) 

Resource Name 

Type(s), Format(s), 

Mediums

DOE Information Bridge; Electronic 

Database, Graphical Internet Site 

(WWW) 

DOE Reports Bibliographic Database; 

Electronic Database, Graphical 

Internet Site (WWW) 

Authority 

Laws, Agency 

Regulations, OMB 

Policies 

Beneficiaries 

(Users) Internal vs. 

External, Public vs. 

Private, Foreign 

DOE Employees, DOE Contractors, 

General Public 

DOE Employees, DOE Contractors, 

General Public 

Sources of Data 

Content 

Laboratories and Administrative 

Offices of the Dept. of Energy 

Dept of Energy Office of Scientific 

and Technical Information (OSTI) 

Value-Added 

Contributions 

Analysts, Brokers, 

Librarians, 

Statisticians, Other 

Specialists 

Most Documents Available Full-Text 

in PDF and Other Formats 

Good search engine 

Distributors 

In-house vs. Contract, 

Other Agencies 

DOE/OSTI (in-house) DOE/OSTI (in-house) 

Financing 

Appropriations, 

Revolving Fund, 

User Fee 

Appropriation Appropriation 

Fee/Free 

Terms and 

Conditions, Amount 

Free Free 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-204 

Department of Health and Human Services

Agency 

Owner vs. Custodian

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Food and Drug 

Administration 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, National Cancer 

Institute/Oxford University Press 

Resource Name 

Type(s), Format(s), 

Mediums

FDA Consumer (Paper, Online) Journal of the National Cancer 

Institute

Authority 

Laws, Agency 

Regulations, OMB 

Policies 

Beneficiaries 

(Users), Internal vs. 

External, Public vs. 

Private, Foreign 

External, Citizens Information Internal and external – public, private, 

and foreign

Sources of Data 

Content 

Food and Drug Administration Articles written by and/or submitted 

to agency sponsored publication

Value-Added 

Contributions 

Analysts, Brokers, 

Librarians, 

Statisticians, Other 

Specialists 

Libraries, full text online providers Oxford University Press

Distributors 

In-house vs. Contract, 

Other Agencies 

Paper: GPO Superintendent of 

Documents, Online: agency website 

Oxford University Press 

Financing 

Appropriations, 

Revolving Fund, 

User Fee 

Appropriations Appropriations, proceeds from vendor 

production

Fee/Free 

Terms and 

Conditions, Amount 

Paper: subscription for sale by GPO 

SuDocs, free through Federal 

Depository Libraries; Online free at 

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/ 

Federal Depository Libraries one free 

copy; individuals $155/yr; institutions 

$235/yr.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-205 

Agency 

Owner vs. Custodian

Department of Health and Human 

Services, National Institute of 

Environmental Health 

Resource Name 

Type(s), Format(s), 

Mediums

Environmental Health Perspectives 

(Paper, Online)

Authority 

Laws, Agency 

Regulations, OMB 

Policies 

Beneficiaries 

(Users), Internal vs. 

External, Public vs. 

Private, Foreign 

Internal and External; public and 

private 

Sources of Data 

Content 

Value-Added 

Contributions 

Analysts, Brokers, 

Librarians, 

Statisticians, Other 

Specialists 

Distributors 

In-house vs. Contract, 

Other Agencies 

Paper: GPO Superintendent of 

Documents, Online: OCR Services, 

Inc on behalf of NIEH 

Financing 

Appropriations, 

Revolving Fund, 

User Fee 

Appropriations, sales 

Fee/Free 

Terms and 

Conditions, Amount 

Paper: subscription for sale by GPO 

SuDocs, online service free through 

Federal Depository Libraries (1 

password); subscription: individual 

$65-$400 or institution $571-$1,369 

(EHP articles are only available for 

subscribers; abstracts of articles are free 

on the agency website: 

http://ehis.niehs.nih.gov/)
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-206 

Department of the Interior

Agency 

Owner vs. Custodian

Department of the Interior, 

Geological Survey 

Resource Name 

Type(s), Format(s), 

Mediums

U.S. 7.5" Topographical Quadrangle 

Maps (Paper) 

Authority 

Laws, Agency 

Regulations, OMB 

Policies 

Title 43 U.S. Code 

Beneficiaries 

(Users), Internal vs. 

External, Public vs. 

Private, Foreign 

Internal, External: Governments: 

Citizens 

Sources of Data 

Content 

Geological Survey 

Value-Added 

Contributions 

Analysts, Brokers, 

Librarians, 

Statisticians, Other 

Specialists 

Librarians, Specialists 

Distributors 

In-house vs. Contract, 

Other Agencies 

USGS 

Financing 

Appropriations, 

Revolving Fund, 

User Fee 

Appropriations, Sales 

Fee/Free 

Terms and 

Conditions, Amount 

Free through Federal Depository 

Libraries; sale by USGS 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-207 

Department of Labor

Agency 

Owner vs. Custodian

Department of Labor, Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 

Department of Labor, Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 

Resource Name 

Type(s), Format(s), 

Mediums

Monthly Labor Review Occupational Outlook Handbook 

Authority 

Laws, Agency 

Regulations, OMB 

Policies 

29 USC 2 et seq. 29 USC 2 et seq. 

Beneficiaries 

(Users), Internal vs. 

External, Public vs. 

Private, Foreign 

Wide distribution to parties with an 

interest in labor subject area 

Wide distribution to parties with an 

interest in labor subject area 

Sources of Data 

Content 

Articles received from solicitation in 

front cover and BLS editorial staff 

Survey results form a variety of 

professional societies, unions, 

industrial organizations and 

government agencies 

Value-Added 

Contributions 

Analysts, Brokers, 

Librarians, 

Statisticians, Other 

Specialists 

Statistical and economic analysis 

provided by contributors including 

BLS staff 

Research and analysis of reported 

date by BLS staff including 

occupational analysts 

Distributors 

In-house vs. Contract, 

Other Agencies 

BLS in cooperation with 

Superintendent of Documents, GPO 

BLS in cooperation with 

Superintendent of Documents, GPO 

Financing 

Appropriations, 

Revolving Fund, 

User Fee 

User fee for production & 

distribution; research costs covered 

by DOL appropriations 

User fee for production & 

distribution; research costs covered 

by DOL appropriations 

Fee/Free 

Terms and 

Conditions, Amount 

Annual subscription from GPO 

SuDocs: $31.00 domestic; $38.75 

foreign; free through Federal 

Depository Libraries 

BLS Bulletin # 2520 for sale by GPO 

SuDocs: softbound $49.00; 

hardbound $51.00; free through 

Federal Depository Libraries 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-208 

Agency 

Owner vs. Custodian

Department of Labor, Employment 

and Training Administration 

Department of Labor, Employment 

Standards Administration 

Resource Name 

Type(s), Format(s), 

Mediums

Dictionary of Occupational Titles; 

(O*NET is the electronic version) 

General Wage Determination 

Guidelines 

Authority 

Laws, Agency 

Regulations, OMB 

Policies 

29 USC; 20 CFR 601 et seq. (general 

ETA provisions) 

40 USC 276; 29 CFR Parts 1,4 and 5 

Beneficiaries 

(Users), Internal vs. 

External, Public vs. 

Private, Foreign 

Wide distribution to parties with an 

interest in labor subject area 

Government agencies & government 

contractors 

Sources of Data 

Content 

Research and verification by 40 

analysts 

Survey results from statutory 

mandate: all Federal government 

construction contracts and most 

contracts for federally assisted 

construction over $2000. 

Value-Added 

Contributions 

Analysts, Brokers, 

Librarians, 

Statisticians, Other 

Specialists 

Research and verification by many 

analysts as in the Forward 

Follows Davis Bacon Construction 

Wage Determinations Manual of 

Operations for collection of data; 

regional offices analyzes and 

tabulates wage and fringe benefit 

data, and determines the adequacy of 

data provided, and formalizes the 

survey results. 

Distributors 

In-house vs. Contract, 

Other Agencies 

DOL/ETA NTIS via web or CD subscription 

Financing 

Appropriations, 

Revolving Fund, 

User Fee 

User fee for production of 1991 

edition; research costs covered by 

DOL appropriations 

User fee 

Fee/Free 

Terms and 

Conditions, Amount 

Available without charge on the 

Internet: http://online.onetcenter.org/ 

For sale by NTIS. CD-ROM: $2,000 

annual subscription inside the US; 

$3,000 outside the US; Internet 

access: $600 annually to search from 

a single station 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-209 

Department of State

Agency 

Owner vs. Custodian

Department of State

Resource Name 

Type(s), Format(s), 

Mediums

U.S. Treaties and Other International 

Agreements (Paper) 

Authority 

Laws, Agency 

Regulations, OMB 

Policies 

1 USC 112a 

Beneficiaries 

(Users), Internal vs. 

External, Public vs. 

Private, Foreign 

Internal, External: Local, State, Tribal 

Government, Citizens, Foreign 

Sources of Data 

Content 

U.S. Dept of State 

Value-Added 

Contributions 

Analysts, Brokers, 

Librarians, 

Statisticians, Other 

Specialists 

Libraries, full text online providers 

Distributors 

In-house vs. Contract, 

Other Agencies 

Official copy through GPO, online 

vendors 

Financing 

Appropriations, 

Revolving Fund, 

User Fee 

Appropriations 

Fee/Free 

Terms and 

Conditions, Amount 

Paper: for sale by GPO SuDocs, free 

through Federal Depository Libraries; 

Other: depends on vendor 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-210 

U.S. Congress

Agency 

Owner vs. Custodian

United States Congress House of Representatives, Office of 

the Law Revision Counsel, 

Resource Name 

Type(s), Format(s), 

Mediums

Congressional Record (Paper since 

1873, Online since 1994) 

U.S. Code (Official copy paper, 

Online) 

Authority 

Laws, Agency 

Regulations, OMB 

Policies 

U.S. Constitution U.S. Constitution 

Beneficiaries 

(Users), Internal vs. 

External, Public vs. 

Private, Foreign 

All users – internal and externalpublic, private, foreignInternal, External: Local, State, Tribal 

Government: Citizens, Foreign 

Sources of Data 

Content 

Debates of the United States House 

of Representatives and Senate

U.S. Congress 

Value-Added 

Contributions 

Analysts, Brokers, 

Librarians, 

Statisticians, Other 

Specialists 

Government Printing Office, various 

commercial information providers

All 

Distributors 

In-house vs. 

Contract, Other 

Agencies 

GPO (paper and Internet – GPO 

Access); Library of Congress 

(THOMAS); CIS (Academic and 

Congressional Universe), Other 

commercial providers

Official copy printed through GPO, 

online version via GPO Access; 

Available through commercial 

vendors 

Financing 

Appropriations, 

Revolving Fund, 

User Fee 

Appropriations Appropriations 

Fee/Free 

Terms and 

Conditions, Amount 

Paper for sale by GPO SuDocs, free 

online via GPO Access and LC 

Thomas; Other: depends on vendor 

and mode of access.

Paper for sale by GPO SuDocs, free 

online via GPO Access, Other: 

depends on vendor and mode of 

access. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-211 

APPENDIX 30. EUROPEAN COMMISSION GREEN PAPER ON PUBLIC SECTOR 

INFORMATION IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY 

PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION: A KEY RESOURCE FOR EUROPE136

TABLE OF CONTENTS137 

Introduction: The issue 

Chapter I: Why is public sector information a key resource for Europe? 

I.1 Importance of access for European citizens 

I.2 Public sector information: Opportunities for economic growth and employment 

Chapter II: The Information Society and the public sector 

II.1 Electronic Government 

II.2 Electronic Government and public sector information 

II.3 Electronic access for all? 

Chapter III: Issues linked to access and exploitation of public sector information 

III.1 Definitions 

III.2 Conditions for access to public sector information 

III.3 Practical tools for facilitating access 

III.4 Pricing issues 

III.5 Competition issues 

III.6 Copyright issues 

III.7 Privacy issues 

III.8 Liability issues 

III.9 EU information 

Concluding remarks

List of questions 

Annexe 1: Current situation in Member States regarding legislation and policy on access to public 

sector information. 

Annexe 2: European Commission action relating to public sector information The background to this 

Green Paper 

Annexe 3: Current situation in the US: the legal framework 

THE ISSUE 

1. Public sector information138 plays a fundamental role in the proper functioning of the internal 

market and the free circulation of goods, services and people. Without user-friendly and readily 

available administrative, legislative, financial or other public information, economic actors cannot 

make fully informed decisions. 

 

136 This excerpt is available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen30.pdf. 137 Only the introduction and Chapter 1 are reproduced in this report. European Commission, Public Sector Information: A 

Key Resource For Europe; Green Paper On Public Sector Information In The Information Society (Com(98)585final, 

Adopted on 20 January 1999); http://europa.eu.int/ispo/docs/policy/docs/com(98)585/gp-intro.html.. 138 The definition of the public sector is an issue for discussion and is further analysed in Chapter III. However, state-owned 

companies operating under market conditions and subject to private and commercial considerations are clearly not meant to 

be covered by this Green Paper. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-212 

2. Public information in Europe is often fragmented and dispersed and so in many instances it is less 

clear than intended. This situation is mainly due to differing national legislation139 on the ways 

information can be accessed and exploited, and to various practices which hamper the availability 

of data. The issue at stake is not that Member States should produce more information, but that the 

information which is already available to the public should be clearer and more accessible to 

potential users. 

3. The ready availability of public information is an absolute prerequisite for the competitiveness of 

European industry. In this respect, EU companies are at a serious competitive disadvantage 

compared to their American counterparts, which benefit from a highly developed, efficient public 

information system at all levels of the administration.140 The timely availability of public sector 

information is also increasingly important to further the networked economy and valorise its 

economic potential. 

4. In Europe the issue is particularly crucial to SMEs, which have fewer resources to devote to an 

often difficult search for fragmented information. Ultimately, this has a negative bearing on job 

creation. The same goes for the difficulties European content firms encounter in comparison to 

their American counterparts as far as the exploitation of public sector information is concerned. 

5. Moreover, in today's economy and society in which the Euro fosters the integration process, the 

fact that EU citizens and consumers cannot make better use of public information available in 

other EU Member States is something of an anachronism. In effect, this situation constitutes a 

challenge to the rights of citizens under the EC Treaties. 

6. Whereas the increasing use of electronic media to store and to disseminate public sector 

information can serve to improve this situation, this has also tended to magnify still further the 

differences that already exist between Member States. Certain Member States have begun to 

examine the effects of new technologies on the public service and in particular on access to and 

exploitation of public sector information.141 This topic is also important for the enlargement of the 

EU, where candidate Member States will have to adapt their legal systems and public services to 

comply with the requirements of the EU membership. Better access to public sector information 

will contribute to this process. 

7. The need for launching a concerted debate at the European level is now more clear and urgent than 

ever. The objective of this Green Paper is to undertake a broad public consultation involving all 

the actors concerned with a view to examining the main issues at stake and also to triggering a 

political discussion at European level. The Green Paper draws on the results of an extensive 

preliminary consultation process that started in June 1996 and has involved representatives from 

the Member States, from citizens' and users' groups and from the private sector and more 

specifically the information industry. All those consulted considered it appropriate to launch a 

debate on this issue. 

8. The subjects addressed in the Green Paper were drawn from the results of this extensive 

consultation. The reactions to this Green Paper and to the questions it poses will guide future 

action on this issue. It is clear that further discussion and an exchange of best practice will be 

necessary with the Member States and the other key actors. 

9. Some issues may require technical solutions; some may be dealt with by improving administrative 

procedures; others will require political solutions. Depending on the results of the public 

 

139 See summary of legislation in Annexe 1. 140 Since the Freedom of Information Act was enacted in 1966, the US government has pursued a very active policy of both 

access to and commercial exploitation of public sector information. This has greatly stimulated the development of the US 

information industry. Annexe 3 gives a picture of the current legal framework in the US. 

141 e.g. The UK's Freedom of Information White Paper, the Dutch memorandum `Towards the Accessibility of Government 

Information' and the French Action Programme "Preparing France's entry into the Information Society". 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-213 

consultation process, proposals for action could be formulated by the Commission to improve the 

situation at European level in specific fields. Such proposals will, of course, only be considered 

where consistent with the subsidiarity and proportionality principles. The type and intensity of any 

response must be limited to what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties. 

10. Nothing in this Green Paper, nor in any future action which it might lead to, should be seen as an 

attempt to prejudice national rules governing the system of property ownership, nor the role of any 

public body in the Member States. 

All interested parties, both from the public and private sectors, are strongly encouraged to provide 

their views on the issues raised in this document. The Commission would be pleased to provide 

additional background information on existing Commission or national access to public information 

policies upon request. Answers, comments and requests should be sent to the following address before 

1st June 1999. 

European Commission 

Attn. Mr. Huber 

Head of Unit DG XIII/E-1 

Bâtiment EUROFORUM 

Office 1174 

Rue Alcide de Gasperi 

L-2920 Luxembourg 

E-mail address: pubinfo@cec.be

Hard copies of all submissions will be made available at the conclusion of the consultation, unless a 

request for confidentiality is received. A Web site has been opened for the posting of both the Green 

Paper and submissions received at the address: http://www.echo.lu/legal/en/access.html. 

CHAPTER I: WHY IS PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION A KEY RESOURCE FOR 

EUROPE? 

I.1 Importance of access for European citizens

Taking advantage of EC rights 

1. The EC Treaty has conferred a number of fundamental freedoms on EU citizens. There are, 

however, considerable practical difficulties that can prevent people from exercising those rights. 

These difficulties result primarily from a lack of transparency for citizens, employers and 

administrations at all levels.

142 

2. In many cases, the information may be spread over different databases or information points of 

local administrations. A better transparency of public sector information can therefore strengthen 

the rights conferred by the EC Treaty by improving the practical conditions for their application. 

3. The existence of different languages in Europe will continue to hamper to some extent EU-wide 

access to public sector information. However, the provision of a multilingual information could be 

facilitated in particular through the use of ICT-technologies.143 

 

142 See for example the Single Market Scoreboard of May 1998, p. 14ff. 143 The language engineering activities in Framework Programme IV and V for R&D address the technological aspects of this 

issue. The R&D-actions are complemented by the market oriented MLIS programme: multiannual programme to promote the 

linguistic diversity of the Community in the Information Society, O.J. N° L306, 28.11.1996, p. 40. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-214 

4. Access to public sector information is essential for the mobility of both workers and categories 

like students and retired people within the EU. A better knowledge of opportunities, circumstances 

and procedures in countries throughout Europe can help them to make more informed choices 

about mobility and to take full advantage of the right to move to another EU country. 

5. The following example shows that efforts are being made at European level to improve 

information flows, thus enhancing mobility perspectives for individual workers within the 

European Union. 

The European Commission has created, together with the Member States the EURES

Network, with the support of the EU's Interchange of Data between Administrations 

(IDA) programme. This network aims to interconnect job vacancy databases in every 

European country to a common European network. This system not only provides jobseekers with job offers, but also with other relevant information that they will need to 

work in another EU country. At the same time it gives employers the chance to seek 

the skills they need Europe-wide. http://europa.eu.int/jobs/eures/. 

6. Access to public sector information goes beyond mobility issues. It also has an impact on the way 

citizens can take advantage of the internal market. Lack of information on administrative 

procedures or on prices, quality and safety conditions of products is one of the barriers that 

prevent consumers from buying goods and enjoying services from other Member States. It is, for 

example very difficult to obtain information on importing right-hand drive vehicles (or left-hand, 

as appropriate) from the British Isles to the Continent or vice-versa.144 Another example is the 

field of taxation, where taxpayers find it enormously difficult to obtain full information on 

international tax arrangements.145 

7. At the Cardiff European Council, a programme was launched called 'Dialogue with Citizens and 

Business'. This Community programme is a follow-on to the Citizens First initiative. It addresses 

citizens and business alike in an effort to encourage greater awareness of the opportunities offered 

by the Single Market. A better access to public sector information is extremely important in this 

respect. 

Participation in the European integration process 

1. A Citizens' Europe will only come about if citizens are to participate effectively in the building 

of the European Union. Such participation implies that they are well informed on issues related to 

the functioning of the EU and its activities. Access to information at both European and national 

level can greatly facilitate this. 

In the last elections of the European Parliament the lack of information on new 

election rights of European citizens had a negative influence: participation of nonnational voters in their Member State of residence was relatively low and only one 

non-national candidate was elected in her Member State of residence.146 

2. Indeed, an adequate access to information of and on the European Union can largely benefit the 

European integration process. The conclusions of the Cardiff European Council have therefore 

once more stressed the importance of the need to bring the European Union closer to the citizens 

by making it more transparent and closer to everyday life through the EU's commitment to 

 

144 `Listening to Citizens; The difficulties that people face in exercising their rights within the Single European Market'. 145 ` Ibidem. This report contains more example where lack of information makes life difficult for European citizens that 

exercise their internal market rights. 

146 See the Second report of the European Commission on Citizenship of the Union, COM/97/230 final. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-215 

allowing the greatest possible access to information on its activities.147 This is a concern for the 

EU and the Member States together since a significant part of the information related to the 

European Union activities is actually held at national level. It seems thus important that European 

citizens have a right of access not only to documents held by the Institutions, but also to EUrelated information, in the broadest sense, available in the Member States. 

3. To enhance the transparency of EU-action for European citizens, the Treaty of Amsterdam has 

firmly anchored their right to access documents of the European Parliament, Council and 

Commission in the EC Treaty.148 The provisions are particularly important in supporting the 

democratic process and in increasing the understanding of the European integration. They are an 

important step, given that a considerable number of the complaints lodged to the European 

Ombudsman deal with transparency and the access to information 

4. The EU institutions pursue an active policy in the field of dissemination of information on its 

functioning and the issues within its responsibility. Annexe 2 gives an overview of the initiatives 

in this field. The EUR-Lex website is one example. 

EUR-Lex displays, for example, free of charge the Official Journal for a period of 

forty-five days following publication, the Treaties, the legislation in force and the 

case-law. It is updated daily in 11 languages with the latest editions of the Official 

Journal. These are available on the Internet a few hours after the paper version is 

published. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex. 

5. In spite of these efforts many European citizens would like to have more information on the EU. 

There is obviously a growing interest for EU-issues that have an impact on citizens' lives. 

68% of the surveyed persons need or would like more information on the European 

Union. Europeans want to know in particular more on their rights as citizens of the 

Union (49%), on the Single currency (45%) and on employment (42%), issues that are 

all absolute priorities for the European Union. Source: Euro barometer n°49, 

September 1998. 

6. Another aspect of a Citizens' Europe is a better access to information on other Member States. It 

will contribute to citizens' knowledge of other European countries, which in its turn can arouse a 

greater interest in the European integration process. To this end public sector bodies in the 

different Member States could make information with an interest for non-nationals more 

accessible to them. 

I.2 Public sector information: Opportunities for economic growth and employment

Why is access to public sector information important for businesses ? 

 

147 Conclusions of Cardiff Council, 15/16 June 1998. 148 New article 191a of the EC Treaty provides that: 

1. "Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member 

State, shall have a right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, subject to the 

principles and the conditions to be defined in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3. 

2. General principles and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing this right of access to documents 

shall be determined by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189b within two 

years of the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam. 

3. Each institution referred to above shall elaborate in its own Rules of Procedure specific provisions regarding 

access to its documents." 

Declaration no. 17 attached to the Maastricht Treaty had already prepared the field for this development. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-216 

1. Access to public sector information in the different Member States is a necessity to take 

advantage of the existing possibilities for all types of businesses operating in more than one 

Member State. 

2. The information relevant to business is in the first place of an administrative nature. At the 

moment it is still hard to get hold of a full picture of the rights, duties and procedures that allow a 

company to operate without difficulties in other European countries. 

58% of companies think that it is likely that access to information would enable them 

to expand their activities within the European Union. For instance, 66% of firms 

identified their need for precise information about administrative procedures. 25% of 

companies think that the persistence of obstacles to trade and business activities could 

be attributed to a lack of information about EU rules. Source: Single Market 

Scoreboard, October 1998 

3. The lack of administrative information particularly harms the SMEs that do not have the means to 

find pieces of information that are often dispersed. 

4. But also information of a non-administrative nature can be extremely important for the 

decisions of firms. Statistical, financial and geographic information are some examples. This 

information plays a key role for businesses in all sectors of activity in particular when defining 

business strategies, marketing decisions, export or investment plans. Quick and easy access to 

such information helps businesses to make informed choices. A lack of information may 

considerably delay decisions on transborder operations. 

5. The relevant business information throughout Europe as collected by the Chambers of Commerce 

is for example not readily available. An initiative at European level has been taken to improve the 

situation in this field (see the box below). 

EBR II Project. The European Business Register project has been established 

because the absence of a fully integrated information service on European Companies 

is a potential threat to the effective operation of the Single European Market. 

Aim of the project is to ensure that basic information on all companies in Europe is 

available throughout Europe without barriers due to differing technologies, 

languages, registration systems, networks etc. The EBR that is funded under the EU's 

Telematics Applications Programme (TAP) has become fully operational in December 

1998 and now allows electronic access to business data of 10 EU Member States plus 

Norway. http://www.ebr.org/. 

6. Also statistical information on European markets and economic trends is in many cases not timely 

available. This problem is however rather linked to the collection of national statistics (differing 

national methodologies, deadlines for submission to Eurostat, quality of indicators, decrease 

burden for SMEs, ...) than to the issue of access per se. 

7. The absence of accessible public sector information may create a competitive disadvantage for 

the foreign firms compared with local firms that can draw upon their own experience on the local 

situation. This is, for example true for insurance services that largely depend on specific local 

information on risks etc. 

8. It also has a negative effect on companies that, by their nature, have a transnational vocation. 

International transport companies offering their services throughout Europe are an example of this. 

Accurate local information -geographic information, traffic information and information on the 

weather amongst others- , is important for their daily operations. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-217 

9. Both administrative and non-administrative information are also relevant for public 

procurement.149 Transparency of Government action in this field is a prerequisite to the 

achievement of a real internal market. Access to information on the local situation is necessary to 

make the rules work efficiently and to optimise fair chances for all firms involved. Since the 

information at stake is not always transparent, public procurement is often in practice still a 

national affair notwithstanding EU legislation. 

10. Another example where the absence of transparency of the information leads to negative results at 

European level, is patent information. The European Patent Office estimates that every year more 

than 18 billion Euro is spent on research that has been done before. Better accessibility of 

information on the state of the art of research, could decrease this amount. 

Esp@cenet. Together with the Member States of the European Patent Organisation 

and the European Commission, the European Patent Office has launched a new 

service called esp@cenet, which is accessible via the Internet. The main aim of this 

new service is to provide users with a readily accessible source of free patent 

information (over 30 million patent documents). It also aims to improve awareness at 

national and international level, in particular among small and medium-sized 

enterprises, of the kind of information that is publicly accessible. 

http://www.european-patent-office.org/. 

11. The conclusion that access to public sector data is highly relevant for businesses throughout 

Europe is backed by the recent Report 'Managing Change' of the High level Group on economic 

and social implications of industrial change.150 It indicates as an immediate priority to 'enhance 

competitiveness by fully opening the European market in telecommunications and data services, 

and to increase freedom of access to government and other state owned data'. 

Public sector information: A potential to further explore and exploit 

1. The public sector, by nature of its size and scope of activities, represents the biggest single 

information content resource for the creation of value-added information content and services. 

Studies have shown that the bulk of commercial information services in the EU information 

market consists of services in areas where the public sector holds very important resources. 

2. Figure 2 clearly shows that public sector information is a key resource for a very large part of 

information services being either the core subject (government/political information, legal 

information) or an essential raw material (company profile, patent information, scientific, 

technical and medical –STM- information, etc.). 

3. Public sector information is therefore a prime information content, essential to the information 

industry and a key enabler for electronic commerce applications.151 

4. The information content industry is growing at an impressive rate and some four million people 

are employed in the content sector in Europe.152 Much of this growth will be within SMEs trying 

 

149 The Special sectorial report on public procurement, November 1997, illustrates the importance of access to information 

for this issue. See the report on European Commission, DG XV web site at the address 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg15/en/publproc/. 150 `Managing change', High level group on economic and social implications of industrial change, Final Report, November 

1998. The Special European Council of Luxembourg (21-22 November 1997) invited this Group to analyse industrial 

changes in the EU and to look at ways of anticipating and dealing with change and its economic and social effects. 

151 For a further analysis on recent trends and critical roles of content and the content industry within the network economy, 

see CONDRINET Study (CONtent and Commerce DRIven Strategies in Global NETworks), October 1998, commissioned 

by the European Commission and conducted by Gemini Consulting. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-218 

to exploit the potential to manage and add-value to information. The emergence and development 

of these highly dynamic companies need to be fostered in particular, as they are essential for the 

creation of new jobs in the 21st century. 

5. The European information industry is competing in a global market. During the preparatory 

process that has led to this Green Paper, European information industry representatives have 

strongly and repeatedly expressed their concerns about the competitive disadvantage of 

European publishers vis-à-vis their counterparts. 

6. Better possibilities for the exploitation of public sector information could partly redress this 

situation and would lead to new opportunities for job creation. In the US the favourable 

conditions for this type of exploitation has already boosted the information industries. 

7. There are hardly any rules in Europe on conditions for exploitation of public sector 

information by the private sector. Guidelines for the synergy of Public and Private Sectors in 

the Information Market were published by the Commission in 1989. Similar guidelines were 

produced by the UK Department of Trade and Industry in 1985. In 1994, a French Prime 

Minister's circular was published and a Memorandum of Understanding was adopted by the Dutch 

government in 1997. 

8. Although these are good initiatives, there is no clear and consistent set of principles throughout 

Europe. This lack of clear and consistent principles means that European industry finds itself in 

a competitive disadvantage vis a vis its US competitors. In some cases this has lead to leading 

European companies investing in products based on US public sector information. 

The British/Dutch Reed Elsevier plc group, has acquired the US based LEXIS-NEXIS 

company, a leading provider of online information services and management tools for 

a variety of professionals (1.4 billion documents in more than 8,692 databases, 1.5 

million subscribers, 1200 employees world wide). They are amongst others 

specialised in legal information. 

9. Pilot projects within the European INFO2000 programme153 have shown that private partners are 

interested in cross-border collaboration with public sector bodies to exploit public sector 

information and that there is a real potential to be further explored and exploited at European 

level. 

The EU potential as shown by INFO 2000 call for proposals

In 1998, in the framework of the INFO2000 programme, the European Commission 

invited proposals for shared-cost pilot, or exploratory projects. The objective of the 

Call was to make the information resources held by the public sector more readily 

available for exploitation in European multimedia content services 

A total of 141 proposals was received by the closing date. The total cost of work 

proposed amounted to 109.7 MECU, and the total EU contribution requested came to 

50.6 MECU. The over subscription of the Call was, therefore, in the order of 7, given 

the indicative budget resource of 7 MECU. 

10. In some cases, the commercial reuse of public sector information may however raise questions as 

to the boundaries and limitations on the roles of the different actors. Once private sector 

interests enter the market for public information the safeguarding of access for all citizens may 

become more difficult. At the same time, if the public sector adds value to its own information, 

 152 European Information Technology Observatory, 1998, Content data include media, publishing, marketing and advertising 

sectors. 

153 INFO2000 programme (Council decision of 20 May 1996, O.J. N° L 129, 30.5.1996, p. 24). 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-219 

launching commercial information products onto a hitherto private information market, the issue 

of fair competition may be raised. 

11. These issues and possible obstacles at European level to the exploitation of public sector 

information will be addressed in chapter III.154 

 

154 Chapter III is not included in this report, but is available from the European Commission website at 

http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/docs/policy/docs/COM(98)585/iii1.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-220 

APPENDIX 31. A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION 

DISSEMINATION RESOURCES 

Compiled by Sarah T. Kadec and Barbara Whiteleather, NCLIS Consultants155

Compilation of this bibliography was undertaken by NCLIS in support of its efforts to examine ways 

to improve government information dissemination to the public. For the most part, the items listed 

cover the years 1995 to date, except for older items considered classics or deemed as heavily 

impacting government policies and programs. Interagency efforts to address the same issues, such as 

the Solomon Island conferences on public access from 1990-1994, are included. It also includes a 

variety of items provided to NCLIS during the course of this study by organizations surveyed, 

members of Commission Panels, Commission experts, or interested individuals. 

The bibliography makes no effort to duplicate statutes referred to either in the 1996 Congressional 

Research Service "Compilation"156 or the NCLIS update of that document included in Appendix 35.157

Furthermore, it was developed independently of the Bibliography of National Information Policies,158

compiled by Toni Carbo, Dean of the School of Information Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, and 

her associates, so there may be some overlap between the two bibliographies. 

NCLIS recognizes that this listing is far from complete and may have missed many important 

documents that would have provided the panels and the staff more valuable information for analysis. 

However, we believe that those listed here add considerably to the body of knowledge on this all 

important topic. 

Abadi, Martin; Burrows, Michael; Lampson, Butler; and Plotkin, Gordon. "A Calculus for Access 

Control in Distributed Systems." ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, Vol. 

15, no. 4 (1993): 706-734. 

Adler, Prudence S. "Federal Information Dissemination Policies and Practices: One Perspective on 

Managing the Transition." Journal of Government Information, Vol. 23 (1996): 435-441. 

Aldrich, Duncan M. "Depository Libraries, the Internet, and the 21st Century?" Journal of 

Government Information, Vol. 23 (1996): 381-391. 

Aldrich, Duncan M. "Partners on the Net: FDLP Partnering to Coordinate Remote Access to InternetBased Government Information." Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 15, no. 1 (1998): 27-38. 

 

155 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen31.pdf. 156 Jane Bortnick Griffith, Harold C. Relyea, and Frances A. Buffalo, Compilation of Statutes Authorizing Dissemination of 

Government Information to the Public, Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service (March 29, 

1996). 

157 Recent laws on dissemination of public information are identified in Appendix 33 in Volume 3 of this report: Index to a 

Compilation of Recent Federal Statutes Pertaining to Public Information Dissemination, and in Appendix 35 in Volume 4: A 

Compilation of Recent Federal Statutes Pertaining to Public Information Dissemination, which includes excerpts of relevant 

provisions. Appendices 33 and 35 are also available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen33.pdf and 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen35.pdf, respectively. 158 The revised bibliography compiled by Toni Carbo is available as Appendix 32 in Volume 3 of this report and at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen32.pdf. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-221 

American Association of Retired Persons. Local Information on Long-Term Care: Consumers' and 

Providers Points of View. Washington, DC: American Association of Retired Persons, Survey Design 

and Analysis and Health Advocacy Services (May 1991). 

American Library Association. Information Access, The Fifth Freedom. 1989 American Library 

Association ALA President's Program. Chicago, IL: American Library Association (June 25, 1989). 

American Library Association. Less Access to Less Information By and About the U.S. Government: A 

1988-1991 Chronology. Washington, DC: American Library Association Washington Office (1992). 

American Library Association. Public Access to Government Information. Issue Brief. Washington, 

DC: American Library Association, Office of Government Relations (January 2000). 

American Library Association. Special Committee on Freedom and Equality of Access to Information. 

Interim Report to the American Library Association (June 28, 1987). 

Andriot, Laurie. Internet Blue Pages: The Guide to Federal Government Web Sites. Medford, NJ: 

Information Today, Inc. (1999). 

Andriot, Laurie. Uncle Sam's K-12 Web: Government Internet Resources for Educators, Students, and 

Parents. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc. (1999). 

Arnold, Stephen E., and Rosen, Linda. Managing the New Electronic Information Products. Riverside, 

CA: Riverside Data, Inc. (1989). 

Art of the Possible: Final Report—FY '93. Sioux Falls, SD: Phoenix Systems, Inc. (1993). 

Association of Research Libraries. ARL Issues Statement on Access to Information. ARL Press 

Release. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries (November 4, 1985). 

Association of Research Libraries. Enhanced Library Access and Dissemination of Federal 

Government Information: A Framework for Future Discussion. Working Document. Washington, DC: 

Association of Research Libraries (June 26, 1995). 

Association of Research Libraries. Government Information Dissemination Programs: Proposals for 

Change and Related Initiatives. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries (2000). 

Association of Research Libraries. Technology and U.S. Government Information Policies: Catalysts 

for New Partnerships. Report No. 3. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries (October 

1987). 

Atkinson, Robert D., and Ulevich, Jacob. Digital Government: The Next Step to Reengineering the 

Federal Government. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute, Technology and New Economy 

Project (March 2000). 

Bagwill, R. H. Sharing Information via the Internet: An Infoserver Case Study. NISTIR-5757. PB 96-

131511GAR. Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Distributed 

Systems Engineering (November 1995).
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-222 

Barquin, Ramon, and Edelstein, Herb. "Data Gold Mines: A New Technology, Data Warehousing, 

Offers Agencies the Opportunity to Mine Valuable Information from Huge Databases." Government 

Executive, Vol. 27 (May 1995): 36-38+. 

Bass, Gary D. "A Stealth Attack on Public Protections: The Anti Regulatory Agenda in the 'Contract 

with America'." Government Information Insider, Vol. 4 (Winter 1995): 2-7. 

Bass, Gary D., and Plocher, David. "Finding Government Information: The Federal Information 

Locator System (FILS)." Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 8 (1991): 13. 

Bates, Mary Ellen. Super Searchers Do Business: The Online Secrets of Top Business Researchers. 

Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc. (1999). 

Beachboard, John C. "Assessing the Information Technology Management Reform Act from a 

Bureau's Perspective." Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 14, no. 3 (1997): 291-311. 

Bearman, David, and Trant, Jennifer. "Authenticity of Digital Resources Toward a Statement of 

Requirements in the Research Process." D-Lib Magazine (June 1998); 

http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june98/06bearman.html. 

Bellamy, Christine, and Taylor, John A. Governing in the Information Age. Bristol, PA: Open 

University Press (1998). 

Bender, David R., et al. National Information Policies: Strategies for the Future. Washington, DC: 

Special Libraries Association (August 1991). 

Benton Foundation and Libraries for the Future. Local Places, Global Connections: Libraries in the 

Digital Age. Washington, DC: Benton Foundation (June 3, 1997); 

http://www.benton.org/Library/Libraries/home.html. 

Berkinshaw, Patrick. Government and Information—The Law Relating to Access, Disclosure and 

Regulation. Charlottesville, VA: Lexis Law Publishing (1990). 

Bertot, John Carlo, and McClure, Charles R. The 1998 National Survey of U.S. Public Library Outlet 

Internet Connectivity: Final Report. A study funded by the American Library Association and the U.S. 

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office (September 1998/Revised February 1999). 

Bertot, John Carlo, and McClure, Charles R. Policy Issues and Strategies Affecting Public Libraries in 

the National Networked Environment: Moving Beyond Connectivity. A study funded by the U.S. 

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office (1997). 

Bertot, John Carlo; McClure, Charles R.; and Zweizig, Douglas L. The 1996 National Survey of Public 

Libraries and the Internet: Progress and Issues. A study funded by the U.S. National Commission on 

Libraries and Information Science. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1996). 

Bessey, K. Michael. In Whose Interest? The Telecommunications Privatization and Universal Service 

in Canada. Cambridge, MA: Center for Information Policy Research, Harvard University (1997). 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-223 

Bjørn-Anderson, Niels; Earl, Michael; Holst, Olav; and Mumford, Enid, editors. Information Society: 

For Richer, For Poorer. Netherlands: North-Holland Publishing Company (1982). 

Blumenthal, Marjory S., and Inouye, Alan S. Assessment of Formats and Standards for the Creation, 

Dissemination, and Permanent Accessibility of Electronic Government Information Products: Phase I.

Report to the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science from the Computer 

Sciences and Technology Board, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. 

Washington, DC (July 16, 1997); http://www.nclis.gov/govt/gpol.html. 

Bosak, Jon, and Bray, Tim. "XML and the Second Generation Web." Scientific American, Vol. 280, 

no. 5 (May 1999): 89- . 

Bradley, Elizabeth H., and Rizzo, John A. "Public Information and Private Search: Evaluating the 

Patient Self-Determination Act." Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, Vol. 24, no. 2 (April 

1999): 239-273. 

Braman, Sandra. "Horizons of the State: Information Policy and Power." Journal of Communications, 

Vol. 45, no. 4 (1995): 4-24. 

Braman, Sandra. "Policy for the Net and the Internet." Annual Review of Science and Technology 

(ARIST), Vol. 30 (1995): 5-75. 

Branscomb, Anne W. Who Owns Information? From Privacy to Public Access. New York: Basic 

Books (1994). 

Brewen, Bob; Verton, Daniel; and Frank, Diane. "Feds vs. Web Vandals." Federal Computer Week, 

Vol. 14 (January 24, 2000): 15. 

Broadbent, M. "Information Delivery: Identifying Priorities, Performance and Value." Information 

Processing and Management, Vol. 29, no. 6 (1993): 683-701. 

Brock, Gerald W. Telecommunications Policy for the Information Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

University Press (September 1998). 

Brown, Lester R.; Flavin, Christopher; and French, Hilary. State of the World. A Worldwatch Institute 

Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc. 

(1997). 

Browning, Graeme. "Dueling over Data." National Journal, Vol. 25 (December 4, 1993): 2880-2884. 

Browning, Graeme. Electronic Democracy. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc. (1996). 

Bunker, Matthew D.; Splichal, Sigman L.; Chamberlin, Bill F.; and Perry, Linda M. "Access to 

Government-Held Information in the Computer Age: Applying Legal Doctrine to Emerging 

Technology." Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 20 (Winter 1993): 543. 

Burgstahler, Sheryl. "Word Wide Access: Accessible Web Design." Employment in the Mainstream, 

Vol. 23 (Fall 1998): 16-19. 

Burrow, James H., et al. Internet and Electronic Dial-up Bulletin Boards. Upland, PA: Diane 

Publishing Company (May 1998). 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-224 

Byrne, Tim. The Regional Role in Permanent Access to Electronic Government Information. 

Presentation to the Fall 2000 Depository Library Council and Federal Depository Library Conference. 

Boulder, CO: University of Colorado (October 22, 2000); 

www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/adnotes/ad081500.html.

Capasso, Paul F. Telecommunications and Information Assurance. Cambridge, MA: Center for 

Information Policy Research (1997). 

Caruso, Denise. "A New Model for the Internet: Fees for Services." New York Times (July 19, 1999). 

Casey, Carol. "Accessibility in the Virtual Library: Creating Equal Opportunity Web Sites." 

Information Technology and Libraries, Vol. 18 (March 1999): 22-25. 

CENDI Cataloging Working Group. The Future of Bibliographic Standards in a Networked 

Information Environment. Workshop at the National Institutes of Health. Bethesda, MD, April 16). 

Oak Ridge, TN: CENDI Secretariat (1997). 

CENDI Image Exchange Working Group. A Proposed Guideline for the Exchange of Images Among 

CENDI Agencies. Oak Ridge, TN: CENDI Secretariat (1996).159

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, American Association of Retired Persons, Consumer Affairs. 

SSI, Medicaid, Food Stamps and LIHEAP Programs: A Summary and Review of Participation Rates 

and Outreach Activities. Washington, DC: American Association of Retired Persons, Consumer 

Affairs, Program Coordination and Development Department (1991). 

Center for Democracy and Technology and OMB Watch. 10 Most Wanted Government Documents.

Washington, DC: Center for Democracy and Technology and OMB Watch (1999); 

http://www.cdt.org/righttoknow/10mostwanted/aboutthe10.html. 

Chartrand, Robert Lee, and Ketcham, Robert C. Opportunities for the Use of Information Resources 

and Advanced Technologies in Congress: A Study for the Joint Committee on the Organization of 

Congress. New York, NY: Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government (1993). 

Chen, Ching-Chih. Planning Global Information Infrastructure. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing 

Corporation (1995). 

Cheney, Debora, and Tulis, Susan, editors. "Special Issue: Challenges to U.S. Government 

Information Access." Journal of Government Information, Vol. 23 (May/July 1996): 217-344; 

(July/August 1996): 365-520. 

Cheverie, Joan F. "Federal Information in the Networked Environment: A Perspective from the 

Coalition for Networked Information." Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 16, no. 3 (1999): 261-

275. 

Christenson, James A., et al., editors. Rural Data, People and Policy: Information Systems for the 21st 

Century. Boulder, CO: Westview Press (1994). 

 

159 CENDI members are: Commerce, Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, National Libraries of Medicine, Agriculture, and Education, Defense, and Interior. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-225 

Christian, Eliot J. "Helping the Public Find Information: The U.S. Government Information Locator 

Service (GILS)." Journal of Government Information, Vol. 21 (July/August 1994): 305-314. 

Coalition for Networked Information. Access to and Services for Federal Information in a Networked 

Environment. Draft Report. Washington, DC: Coalition for Networked Information (1997); 

http://www.cni.org/projects/fedinfo/fedinfo.draft.html. 

Coalition for Networked Information. Information Policies: A Compilation of Position Statements, 

Principles, Statutes, and Other Pertinent Statements. Washington, DC: Coalition for Networked 

Information (1991). 

Coalition on Government Information. Access to Government Information Strategies and Actions for 

the Next Administration. A Forum Sponsored by the Coalition on Government Information, 

Washington, DC (January 6, 1989). 

Cocklin, John T. "FedWorld, THOMAS and CBDNet. U.S. Federal Government Information 

Dissemination in the 1990s." Journal of Government Information, Vol. 25 (September/October 1998): 

397-412. 

Colmers, John M., et al. Public-Private Collaboration in Health Information Policy. New York, NY: 

Milbank Memorial Fund (May 1999). 

Commission on Preservation and Access (CPA) and the Research Libraries Group (RLG). Preserving 

Digital Information: Final Report of the Task Force on Archiving of Digital Information. Washington, 

DC: CPA/RLG (1995). 

Compaine, Benjamin M., and Read, William H. The Information Resources Policy Handbook: 

Research for the Information Age. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press (1999). 

Conkling, Thomas W. "The U.S. DOE 'Information Bridge', Technical Reports for the Desktop." 

Journal of Government Information, Vol. 26, no. 4 (July/August 1999): 405-412. 

Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems. Reference Model for an Open Archival Information 

System. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1997). 

Cooper, Steve. "New NRC Website (Coast Guard National Response Center)." U.S. Coast Guard 

System Times, Vol. 2, no. 6 (Summer 1998): 44-46. 

Cornwell, Gary T. "The Dissemination of Federal Government Information: Prospects for the 

Immediate Future." Journal of Government Information, Vol. 23 (1996): 299-306. 

Council on Library Resources. Communications in Support of Science and Engineering: A Report to 

the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: Council on Library Resources (1990). 

Council on Library Resources. Scholarship, Research, and Access to Information. A Statement from 

the Council on Library Resources. Washington, DC: Council on Library Resources (January 1985). 

"Courts Quick to Discover Internet's Capabilities." The Third Branch, The Newsletter of the Federal 

Courts, Vol. 30, no. 9 (September 1998): 2-3. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-226 

Cunningham, Carmela, and Coombs, Norman. Information Access and Adaptive Technology. Phoenix, 

AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press (1997). 

D'Aleo, Richard J. FEDfind: Your Key to Finding Federal Government Information. Springfield, VA: 

ICUC Press (1986). 

D'Elia, George, in collaboration with the University of Minnesota Center for Survey Research and The 

Gallup Organization. The Roles of the Public Library in Society: The Results of a National Survey.

Evanston, IL: Urban Libraries Council (1993). 

Davidson, Bruce N. "Designing Health Insurance Information for the Medicare Beneficiary: A Policy 

Synthesis." Health Services Research, Vol. 23, no. 5 (December 1998): 685-719. 

Davis, Trudi Jo. "Solving the Puzzle of Senior Benefits." Secure Retirement, Vol. 3, no. 6 (OctoberNovember-December 1994): 26. 

Delivering Electronic Information in a Knowledge-Based Democracy; Summary of Conference 

Proceedings. July 14, 1993. Washington, DC: Library of Congress (1993). 

DePippo, David J. "WWW.NavigationalInformation." U.S. Coast Guard System Times, Vol. 2, no. 8 

(Winter 1999): 53-54. 

DeSanti, Vincent M. "A Policy Framework on the Dissemination of Government Electronic 

Information: Some Remarks." Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 10 (1993): 255-260. 

Dessy, Blane, and Stubbs, Keith M. Internet Customer Survey Results. Preliminary Findings Report. 

Washington, DC: Department of Education (January 31, 1997). 

DiMario, Michael F. "Remarks on the Foundations of Federal Public Access Policy." Government 

Information Issues in the 21st Century, Vol. 28, no. 2 (Summer 2000): 48-56. 

Dixon, Judith M. "Leveling the Road Ahead: Guidelines for the Creation of WWW Pages Accessible 

to Blind and Visually Handicapped Users." Library Hi Tech, Vol. 14 (1996): 65-68. 

Dorobek, Christopher J. "GCN Test: Agencies Vary in Handling of Online Queries." Government 

Computer News, Vol. 17 (October 12, 1998): 56. 

Dugan, Robert E., and Cheverie, Joan F. "Electronic Government Information and the Depository 

Library Program: Paradise Found?" Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 9 (1992): 269-289. 

Earl, Crista, and Leventhal, Jay. "A Survey of Windows Screen Reader Users: Recent Improvements 

in Accessibility." Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, Vol. 93 (April 1999): 247-250. 

Eaton, Fynnette. "Preservation Strategies for Electronic Records." Spectra, Vol. 22 (Winter 1995): 22-

24. 

Eisenbeis, Kathleen M. Privatizing Government Information: The Effects of Policy on Access to 

Landsat Satellite Data. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow (1995). 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-227 

Ellis, R. Darin; Jankowski, Thomas B.; and Jasper, Jarrod E. "Participatory Design of an Internetbased Information System for Aging Services Professionals." Gerontologist, Vol. 38, no 6 (December 

1998): 743-748. 

Energy Information Administration. Energy Infodisc. Vol. 1, 1st quarter (1966). 

European Commission. Public Sector Information: A Key Resource For Europe; Green Paper on 

Public Sector Information in the Information Society. (COM(98)585final, adopted on 20 January 

1999); http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/docs/policy/docs/COM(98)585/gp-intro.html. 

Evans, James H. Government on the Net. 1st edition. Berkeley, CA: Nolo Press (1998). 

Federal Publishers Committee and Interagency Council on Printing and Publications Services. Guide 

to Federal Publishing: What Every Federal Publisher Should Know About the Publishing Process.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office (1992). 

Feeney, M., and Grieves, Maureen. Information Policy in the Electronic Age. New Providence NJ: 

Bowker-Saur (1998). 

Flater, D. W., and Yesha, Y. "Issues for Bringing Digital Libraries into Public Use." (CASI accession 

number N94-33821). Catonsville, MD: Maryland University, Baltimore County. See also: NASA 

Goddard Conference on Mass Storage Systems and Technologies (1992): 389-392: Flater, D. W., and 

Yesha, Y. "Issues for Bringing Digital Libraries into Public Use". (N94-33791/2; N94338217XSP). 

Ford, Stephanie. "Public Access to Electronic Federal Depository Information in Regional Depository 

Libraries." Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 14, no. 1 (1997): 51-63. 

Fox, J. Charles. A Real Public Role. Environmental Forum, Vol. 15 (November/December 1998): 18-

30. 

Fry, Bernard M. Government Publications: Their Role in the National Program for Library and 

Information Services. Prepared for the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information 

Science. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1978). 

The Future Library in Context: Challenges and Opportunities in a Networked World. New York, NY: 

Libraries for the Future (1998). 

Garnett, Carla. "Ultra-Swift Internet 2 Connection Now Available at NIH." NIH Review, Vol. 51, no. 

14 (July 13, 1999): 1, 6-7. 

Garson, U. David. Handbook of Public Information Systems. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc. 

(January 2000). 

Gates, Bill. The Road Ahead. New York, NY: Penguin Group (1995). 

Gellman, Robert. "Agencies Need to Ponder Web's Long-Term Role." Government Computer News, 

Vol. 17 (October 12, 1998): 22. 

Gellman, Robert. "Cost-Saving Move Jeopardizes Federal Register." Government Computer News 

(March 6, 2000): 24. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-228 

"Getting Information on U.S. Agricultural Trade Has Never Been Easier." AgExporter, Vol. 11, no. 6 

(June 1999): 9-12. 

Gladney, Henry M. "Access Control for Large Collections." ACM Transactions on Information 

Systems, Vol. 15, no. 2 (April 1997): 154-194. 

Gladney, Henry M. "Safeguarding Digital Library Contents and Users: Interim Retrospect and 

Prospects." D-Lib Magazine (July/August 1998); 

http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july98/gladney/07gladney.html. 

Gladney, Henry M., and Lotspiech, Jeff. "Safeguarding Digital Library Contents and Users: Storing, 

Sending, Showing, and Honoring Usage Terms and Conditions." D-Lib Magazine (May 1998); 

http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may98/gladney/05gladney.html. 

Gleick, James. "The Digital Attic: Are We Now Amnesiacs? Or Packrats?" New York Times (April 12, 

1998), Section 6: 20. 

Goldstein, Elizabeth. "Assessment of the National Medicare Education Program: Supply and Demand 

for Information." Health Care Financing Review, Vol. 21, no. 1 (Fall 1999): 129-131. Health Care 

Financing Administration. 

Gore, Al. Access America, Reengineering Through Information Technology: Report of the National 

Performance Review and Government Information Technology Services Board. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office (1997). 

Gore, Al. Vice President Gore Announces Efforts to Expand and Improve On-line Services; Press 

Release. Washington, DC, The White House, Office of the Vice President (December 17, 1999). 

Government Documents Round Table (GODORT) of the American Library Association (ALA). 

Frequently Used Sites Related to U.S. Federal Government Information. Washington, DC: American 

Library Association (July 31, 2000). 

Greene, R. W. GIS in Public Policy. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute (May 

2000). 

Griffith, Jane Bortnick; Relyea, Harold C.; and Buffalo, Frances A. Compilation of Statutes 

Authorizing Dissemination of Government Information to the Public. Washington, DC: Library of 

Congress, Congressional Research Service (March 29, 1996). 

Griffiths, J. M. Internet Counts, Measuring the Impacts of the Internet. Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press (1998). 

Griffiths, J. M; Carroll, Bonnie; King, Don; and Williams, Martha. Issues in Scientific and Technical 

Information Dissemination in the U.S. Prepared for NSF Study on Assessment of STI Dissemination 

in the U.S. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation (January 1991). 

Guernsey, Lisa. "The Library as the Latest Web Venture." New York Times (June 15, 2000): e-1, 12-

13. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-229 

Gurvitt, Rob. "Innovation by Wire: Want to Find Out How Somebody Else Has Already Solved Your 

Governmental Problem? Try Cyberspace." Governing, Vol. 8 (October 1994): 52-57. 

Haggerty, Maxine R., and Frear, Ruth A, editors. Proceedings of the Symposium on Public Access to 

Federal Government Information. Salt Lake City, UT: The Utah Library Association Government 

Documents Round Table (June 1986). 

Hales-Mabry, Celia. World of the Aging: Information Needs and Choices. Chicago, IL: American 

Library Association (1993). 

Hall, Krista. "Web-Enabled Coast Guard (Internet)." U.S. Coast Guard System Times, Vol. 2, no. 2 

(Summer l998): 42-43. 

Halstuk, Martin E. "Bits, Bytes, and the Right to Know: How the Electronic Freedom of Information 

Act Holds the Key to Public Access to a Wealth of Useful Government Databases." Santa Clara 

Computer and High Technology Law Journal, Vol. 15 (January 1999): 73. 

Halvorson, T. R. Law of the Super Searchers: The Online Secrets of Top Legal Researchers. Medford, 

NJ: Information Today, Inc. (1999). 

Hane, Paula J. Northern Light's usgovsearch Begins Commercial Operation with Revised Pricing Plan 

(July 8, 2000); http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb0621-2.htm. 

Hawkins, Brian, and Battin, Patricia, editors. The Mirage of Continuity: Reconfiguring Academic 

Information Resources for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information 

Resources (1998). 

Henderson, Carol C., and King, Frederick D. "The Role of Public Libraries in Providing Public Access 

to the Internet." Public Access to the Internet. Edited by Brian Kahin and James Keller. Cambridge, 

MA: MIT Press (1995): 154-171. 

Henderson, Jennifer. J. "Potholes on the Information Bridge to the 21st Century: the Second Annual 

OMB Watch Report on the U.S. Federal Government Information Locator Service (GILS)." 

Government Information Insider, Vol. 5 (Summer/Fall 1996): 4-17, A-1-A-15. 

Henderson, Jennifer N., and McDermott, Patrice "Finding and Getting Electronic Government 

Information: GPO Access." An interview with Wayne P. Kelley, Superintendent of Documents, 

Government Printing Office, and Judith C. Russell, Director, Office of Electronic Information 

Dissemination Services, where they discuss the role of the GPO in access to government information 

and information policy in the federal government. Government Information Insider, Vol. IV, no. 2 

(Spring 1995): 2-7; http://ombwatch.org/info/giiindex.html - 1995. 

Henderson, Jennifer N., and McDermott, Patrice. "Putting Government Online." Government 

Information Insider, Vol. 4 (Summer 1995): 2-11. 

Herman, Edward. Locating United States Government Information: A Guide to Sources, 1999 Internet 

Supplement. Buffalo, NY: W. S. Hein (1999). 

Hernon, Peter. "Disinformation and Misinformation Through the Internet: Findings of an Exploratory 

Study." Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 12 (1995): 133-139. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-230 

Hernon, Peter. "Government Information Safety Nets." Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 7 

(1990): 249-257. 

Hernon, Peter. "Information Life Cycle: Its Place in the Management of U.S. Government Information 

Resources." Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 11, no. 2: 143-170. 

Hernon, Peter, and McClure, Charles R. "Electronic U.S. Government Information: Policy Issues and 

Directions." Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 28 (1993): 45-101. 

Hernon, Peter, and McClure, Charles R. Federal Information Policies in the 1980's: Conflicts and 

Issues. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation (1987). 

Hernon, Peter, and McClure, Charles R. Public Access to Government Information: Issues, Trends and 

Strategies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation (1984). 

Hernon, Peter, and McClure, Charles R. Public Access to Government Information: Issues, Trends and 

Strategies. 2nd revised edition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation (1988). 

Hernon, Peter; McClure, Charles R.; and Relyea, Harold C., editors. Federal Information Policies in 

the 1990s: Views and Perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation (1996). 

Hernon, Peter, and Relyea, Harold C. "Government Publishing: Past to Present." Government 

Information Quarterly, Vol. 12, no. 3 (1995): 309-330. 

Hernon, Peter; Shuler, John A.; and Dugan, Robert E. U.S. Government on the Web: Getting the 

Information You Need. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited (1999). 

Herzberg, Amir. "Safeguarding Digital Library Contents: Charging for Online Content." D-Lib 

Magazine (January 1998). 

Horton, Forest Woody, Jr. "In the United States Court of Public Opinion Before the Policy-Makers of 

the Federal Government." Bulletin of the American Society for Information Society, Part I (April/May 

1990): 17-18; Part II (August/September 1990): 26-29. 

Hundt, Read E. You Say You Want a Revolution: A Story of Information Age Politics. Princeton, NY: 

Yale University Press (May 2000). 

Hutto, Dena Holiman. "Challenges of the Electronic Age: Titles of Note in the Literature of 

Government Information." Recent Literature on Government Information. Journal of Government 

Information, Vol. 27, no. 2 (March/April 2000): 193-242. 

"INFOethics 2000: Right to Universal Access to Information in the Twenty-first Century." Paris: 

UNESCO Information and Informatics Division. UNISIST Newsletter, Vol. 27, no. 2 (1999): 4-5. 

Information Industry Association. Principles for Federal Dissemination of Public Information. 

Executive Summary and Analysis. Interim Final Report. Washington, DC: Information Industry 

Association (March 1995). 

Jensen, Richard M. The Information War Power. Cambridge, MA: Center for Information Policy 

Research (1997). 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-231 

Johnson, Alice J. H. "Information Brokers: Case Studies of Successful Ventures." Journal of 

Interlibrary Loan, Vol. 5, no. 2 (1995). 

Joy, Bill, and Kennedy, Ken. President's Information Technology Advisory Committee Interim Report 

(August 1998); http://www.ccic.gov/ac/interim. 

Kahin, Brian, and Keller, James, editors. Public Access to the Internet. Cambridge, MA: The MIT 

Press (1995). 

Karsten, Stephanie, et al. Dissemination by Design. Upland, PA: Diane Publishing Company (July 

1996). 

Katz, Steven L. Testimony on National Security Controls on Unclassified Information Before the U.S. 

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Washington, DC: People for the 

American Way (May 28, 1978). 

Katzen, Sally. Principles for Federal Agency Use of the World-Wide Web; Memorandum for Agency 

Chief Information Officers. Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget (April 14, 1997). 

Preliminary Draft. 

Kaye, H. Stephen. Computer and Internet Use Among People with Disabilities. Disability Statistics 

Report (13). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research (March 2000). 

Kaye, H. Stephen. Disability and the Digital Divide. Abstract 22. San Francisco, CA: Disability 

Statistics Center, University of California, San Francisco (July 2000);

http://www.dsc.ucsf.edu/UCSF/pdf/ABSTRACT22.pdf. 

Ketti, Donald F. "What's Next: The World and the Country Are Changing, and the Federal 

Government Had Better Figure Out How to Catch Up." Government Executive, Vol. 33, no. 1 (January 

2001): 21-26. 

King, Thomas W. Assistive Technology: Essential Human Factors. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon 

(1999). 

Koebler, Benjamin, and Hariharan, P. C., editors. Third NASA Goddard Conference on Mass Storage 

Systems and Technologies. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1994). 

Korvin, Catherine, editor. Public Policy Information Sources: A PAIS International Guide to Journals, 

Publishers and Websites. New York, NY: Public Affairs Information (1998). 

Krissoff, Alan, and Konrad, Lee. "Computer Training for Staff and Patrons: a Comprehensive 

Academic Model." Computers in Libraries, Vol. 18 (January 1998): 28, 30-32. 

Kurshan, Barbara; Harrington, Marcia; and Milbury, Peter. An Educator's Guide to Electronic 

Networking: Creating Virtual Communities. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and 

Technology (1994). 

Lampard, Liz. Business Information From Government. New Providence, NJ: Bowker-Saur (February 

1998). 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-232 

Lancaster, F. W.; A. H. Helal; and J. W. Weiss, editors. "Has Technology Failed Us?" Information 

Technology and Library Management. Festschrift in Honour of Margaret Bechman. 13th International 

Essen Symposium, 22-25 October 1989. Essen, Germany: Essen University Library (1991). 

Lancaster, F. Wilfrid. The Dissemination of Scientific and Technical Information. Champaign-Urbana, 

IL: University of Illinois, Graduate School of Library and Information Science (1977). 

Laudicina, Susan S. State Insurance Departments' Consumer Education and Protection Activities: 

Findings of a National Survey. Washington, DC: American Association of Retired Persons (1989). 

Larivière, Jules. Guidelines for Legal Deposit Legislation. The Hague: International Federation of 

Library Associations and Institutions (October 24, 2000); 

http://www.ifla.org/VII/s1/gnl/legaldep1.htm. 

Lawrence, Gregory W. "U.S. Agricultural Statistics on the Internet: Extending the Reach of the 

Depository Library." Journal of Government Information, Vol. 23 (1996): 443-452. 

Lenhart, Amanda. Who's Not Online: 57% of Those Without Internet Access Say They Do Not Plan to 

Log On. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project (September 21, 2000); 

http://63.210.24.35/reports/pdfs/Pew_Those_Not_Online_Report.pdf. 

Lesko, Matthew, editor. The Federal Database Finder: A Directory of Free and Fee-Based Databases 

and Files Available from the Federal Government, 4th edition. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group 

(1995). 

Levin, Jane, editor. The Federal Internet Source. 3rd edition. Washington, DC: National Journal (Fall 

1995).

Levitan, Karen, editor. Government Infostructures: A Guide to the Networks of Information Resources 

and Technologies at Federal, State, and Local Levels. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press (1987).

Lewack, Mark A., and Butler, William. "Port State Information Exchange (PSIX) (Vessel Information 

on the Internet)." U.S. Coast Guard System Times, Vol. 2, no. 7 (Fall 1998): 53-55. 

Lewin, Marion Ein, and Jones, Stanley B. "Market Comes to Medicare: Adding Choice and 

Protections. " Health Affairs, Vol. 15, no. 4 (Winter 1996): 57-61. 

Lewis, James D. "White House Electronic Mail and Federal Recordkeeping Law: Press D to Delete 

History." Michigan Law Review, Vol. 93 (February 1995): 794. 

Lippincott, Joan K., and Cheverie, Joan F. "The 'Blur' of Federal Information and Services: 

Implications for University Libraries." Journal of Government Information, Vol. 26, no. 2 (JanuaryFebruary 1999): 25-31. 

Lopez, Xavier. Dissemination of Spatial Data: A North American-European Comparative Study on the 

Impact of Government Information Policy. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing (May 1998). 

Lotspiech, Jeffrey; Kohl, Ulrich; and Kaplan, Marc. "Safeguarding Digital Library Contents and 

Users: Protecting Documents Rather Than Channels." D-Lib Magazine (September 1997). 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-233 

Love, James. "Pricing Government Information." Journal of Government Information, Vol. 22 

(September/October 1995): 363-387. 

Lowry, Charles B. Testimony for NCLIS Visit: Economics of Digital Libraries--Print vs. Electronic.

Washington, DC: Carnegie Institute (July 14, 1995). 

Lutzky, Steven, and Alecxih, Lisa Maria B. "Enabling Informed Consumer Choice in the Long-Term 

Care Insurance Market." Journal of Aging and Social Policy, Vol. 10, no. 3 (1999): 27-44. 

Lynch, Clifford A. Accessibility and Integrity of Networked Information Collections. OTA-BP-TCT109. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1993). 

Lynch, Clifford A. "Online Searching on the Internet: the Challenge of Information Semantics for 

Networked Information." Proceedings of the 1992 National Online Meeting. Medford, NJ: Learned 

Information (1992): 203-210. 

Lynch, Clifford A. "When Technology Leads Policy." In Proceedings of the 131st ARL Meeting. 

Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries (1997). 

Lynch, Clifford A., and Preston, Cecilia M. Describing and Classifying Networked Information 

Resources." Electronic Networking: Research, Applications and Policy, Vol. 2, no. 1 (Spring 1992): 

13-23. 

MacDonald, David. "The Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments: A Minor Upgrade to 

Public Access Law." Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, Vol. 23 (1997): 357. 

MacGilvray, Marian W., and Walters, John M. Electronic Capabilities of Federal Depository 

Libraries, Summer 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1995). 

Marcum, Deanna B. "The Preservation of Digital Information." The Journal of Academic 

Librarianship, Vol. 22, no. 6 (1996): 451-454. 

Martin, Shannon E. Bits, Bytes and Big Brother: Federal Information Control in the Technological 

Age. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers (1995). 

Martyn, John; Vickers, Peter; and Feeney, Mary, editors. Information UK 2000. Great Britain: 

Bowker-Saur (1991). 

Mates, Barbara T. Adaptive Technology for the Internet: Making Electronic Resources Accessible. 

Chicago, IL: American Library Association (1999). 

Matthews, William. "Access.Gov, Adapting Systems for the Disabled Isn't as Tough as You Think." 

Federal Computer Week (August 7, 2000): 18-28. 

Matthews, William. "Archives Predicts Deluge." Federal Computer Week, Vol. 14 (July 10, 2000): 21. 

Matthews, William. "E-government: by the People, for the People." Federal Computer Week (May 12, 

2000): 10. 

Matthews, William. "The Ultimate Archives." Federal Computer Week (August 28, 2000); 

http://www.fcw.com/fcsw/articles/2000/0828/cov-archive-08-28-00.asp. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-234 

Mayer, Merry. "Statistics Bureau Will Post No Data Before Its Time." Government Computer News, 

Vol. 17 (November 23, 1998): 1, 8. 

Maxymuk, John, editor. Finding Government Information on the Internet. A How-To-Do-It Manual. 

New York, NY: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc. (1995). 

McClure, Charles R.; Bishop, Ann; Doty, Philip; and Bergeron, Pierrette. Federal Information 

Inventory/Locator Systems: from Burden to Benefit. Final Report to the U.S. General Services 

Administration Regulatory Information Service Center and U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. ERIC Document Reproduction Services ED 326247. 

Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University, School of Information Studies (July 27, 1990). 

McClure, Charles R. "Information Policy." Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, Vol. 65: 

306-314. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker (1999). 

McClure, Charles R.; Bertot, John Carlo; and Beachboard, John C. Internet Costs and Cost Models for 

Public Libraries. A study funded by the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information 

Science. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1995). 

McClure, Charles R.; Bertot, John Carlo; and Zweizig, Douglas L. Public Libraries and the Internet: 

Study Results, Policy Issues, and Recommendations. A study funded by the U.S. National Commission 

on Libraries and Information Science. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1994). 

McClure, Charles R., and Hernon, Peter. Users of Academic and Public Depository Libraries. 

Information Consultant Services. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1988). 

McClure, Charles R.; Hernon, Peter; and Purcell, Gary R. Linking the U.S. National Technical 

Information Service with Academic and Public Libraries. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation 

(1986). 

McClure, Charles R.; Moen, William E.; and Ryan, Joe. "Design for an Internet-Based Governmentwide Information Locator System. Electronic Networking: Research, Applications and Policy, Vol. 2, 

no. 4 (Winter, 1992): 6-37. 

McClure, Charles R.; Ryan, Joe; and Moen, William E. Identifying and Describing Federal 

Information Inventory/Locator Systems: Design for Network-Based Locators. Volumes I and II. A 

Study Jointly Funded by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. General Services 

Administration, and the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse 

University School of Information Studies (August 1992). 

McClure, Charles R., and Sprehe, J. Timothy. Analysis and Development of Model Quality Guidelines 

for Electronic Records Management on State and Federal Websites. Washington, DC: National 

Historic Preservation Commission (1998). 

McClure, Charles R.; Sprehe, J. Timothy; and Eschenfelder, Kristen. Performance Measures for 

Agency Websites. A Study Jointly Funded by the U.S. Defense Technical Information Center, U.S. 

Energy Information Administration, and U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office (2000). 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-235 

McClure, David L. "Improving Federal Performance in the Information Era: The Information 

Technology Management Reform Act of 1996." Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 14, no. 3 

(1997): 255-269. 

McConnell, Bruce W. "New Wine in Old Wineskins: U.S. Government Information in a Networked 

World." Journal of Government Information, Vol. 23 (1996): 217-226. 

McDermott, Patrice. "First, The Good News: The New Paperwork Reduction Act." Government 

Information Insider, Vol. 4 (Summer 1995): 12-16. 

McDermott, Patrice. "FirstGov: All Bark, No Bite." Federal Computer Week (August 14, 2000): 58. 

McDermott, Patrice. Launch and Forget? An OMB Watch Report on the Implementation of the U.S. 

Federal GILS. Washington, DC: OMB Watch (August 1998). 

McDermott, Patrice. "Letter: GILS Not Superfluous." Federal Computer Week, Vol. 12, (September 

21, 1998): 20. 

McHale, John. The Changing Information Environment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc. (1976). 

McIntosh, Toby J. Federal Information in the Electronic Age: Policy Issues for the 1990s. 

Washington, DC: BNA Plus (1990). 

McKibben, Bill. The Age of Missing Information. New York, NY: Penguin Group (1993). 

McNulty, Tom, editor. Accessible Libraries on Campus: A Practical Guide for the Creation of 

Disability-Friendly Libraries. Chicago: American Library Association, Association of College and 

Research Libraries (1999). 

Microsoft Corporation. Effective Web Design Considerations for Older Adults. Redmond, WA: 

Microsoft Corporation (May 12, 1999). 

Miller, Thomas E. "New Markets for Information." American Demographics, Vol. 17 (April 1995): 

46-52.

Moen, William E., editor. "Symposium on Information Technology Standards and Federal Information 

Policy." Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 11, no. 4 (1994): 357-422. 

Moen, William E., and McClure, Charles R. The Evaluation of the Federal Government's 

Implementation of the Government Information Locator Service (GILS). Washington, DC: General 

Services Administration (June 30, 1997). 

Mohienrich, Janice, editor. Preservation of Electronic Formats and Electronic Formats for 

Preservation. Fort Atkinson, WI: Highsmith Press (1993). 

Molholm, Kurt N. "The Defense Technical Information Center: Expanding its Horizons." Government 

Information Quarterly, Vol. 12, no. 3 (1995): 331-344. 

Molholm, Kurt N. The Issue of Access to Federal Information. Proceedings of the Federal Pre-White 

House Conference on Library and Information Services, November 26-27, 1990. Washington, DC: 

Library of Congress, Federal Library and Information Center Committee (1991). 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-236 

Molholm, Kurt N., and Frank, Forrest, "CENDI—Improving the Flow of Scientific and Technical 

Information," Competitive Intelligence Review, Vol. 5, no. 1, (Spring 1994): 56-63. 

Molholm, Kurt, et al, editors. Government Information and Policy: Changing Role in a New 

Administration. Philadelphia, PA: National Federation of Abstracting and Indexing Services (1994). 

"More HMO Information Needed for Seniors." Consumers' Research Magazine, Vol. 80, no. 1 

(January 1997): 28-31. 

Morton, Sandi I. "Federal Information Policy." Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 7 (1990): 67-

72. 

Murray, Bill. "Web Site Saves Money for NSF." Government Computer News, Vol. 17 (October 26, 

1998): 32. 

National Academy of Public Administration. Geographic Information for the 21st Century: Building a 

Strategy for the Nation. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration (1998). 

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, Committee 

on Science, Engineering and Public Policy. Information Technology and the Conduct of Research: The 

User's View. Report of the Panel on Information Technology and the Conduct of Research. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press (1989). 

National Association of State Units on Aging. Enhancing the Coverage on Eldercare Issues by the 

Print Media: Final Report. Washington, DC: National Association of State Units on Aging (1994). 

National Association of State Units on Aging, Center for the Advancement of State Community Care 

Programs. Toward a National Strategy to Enhance Information and Referral Systems for Older People 

in the 1990s. Washington, DC: National Association of State Units on Aging (April 1, 1990). 

National Forum on Scientific and Technical Communication. Critical Issues in Scientific and 

Technical Communication: Perceptions of Users, Providers and Policymakers, Report of the National 

Forum on Scientific and Technical Communication. Washington, DC: The George Washington 

University, Science Communication Division (1978). 

National Indian Council on Aging. SSI Search Program: Access Model. Albuquerque, NM: National 

Indian Council on Aging (1993). 

National Research Council. Bits of Power: Issues in Global Access to Scientific Data. Washington, 

DC: National Academy Press (1997). 

National Research Council. Preserving Scientific Data on Our Physical University: A New Strategy 

for Archiving Our Nation's Scientific Information Resources. Washington, DC: National Academy 

Press (1995). 

National Research Council. A Question of Balance: Private Rights and the Public Interest in Scientific 

and Technical Databases. Washington, DC: National Academy Press (1999). 

National Research Council, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board. The Digital Dilemma: 

Intellectual Property in the Information Age. Washington, DC: National Academy Press (2000). 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-237 

National Research Council, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board. Fostering Research 

on the Economic and Social Impacts of Information Technology: Report of a Workshop. Washington, 

DC: National Academy Press (1998). 

National Research Council, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board. Information 

Technology in the Service Society: A Twenty-First Century Lever. Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press (1994). 

National Research Council, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board. LC21: A Digital 

Strategy for the Library of Congress. Washington, DC: National Academy Press (2001); 

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/0a254cd9b53e0bc585256777004e74d3/bd6c8fce95b00a

6d852569280047753a?OpenDocument.

National Research Council, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Information 

Infrastructure 2000 Steering Committee. The Unpredictable Certainty: Information Infrastructure 

Through 2000. Washington, DC: National Academy Press (1996). 

Nelson, Michael R. The View from the White House: A Public Policy Perspective. In The Information 

Revolution and National Security, edited by Stuart J. D. Schwartzstein. Washington, DC: The Center 

for Strategic and National Studies (1996): XX. 

"New Electronic Information Systems Open a Virtual Library On-Line." Armor, Vol. 108, no. 1 

(January/February 1999): 57. 

Nicklass, Ray, and Falsch, Peter. "Project Impact Improves Weather Data Collection and 

Dissemination." Aware (April 1999): 14-15. 

Nilsen, Kursti. The Impact of Information Policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation (2000). 

Nimmer, Raymond T. Information Law. Boston, MA: Warren, Graham and Lamont (c1996). 

Noack, David. "Government Technology: Power to the People." American City and County, Vol. 109 

(May 1994): 40-42. 

Noteos, Greg R. Government Information on the Internet. Lanham, MD: Bernan Press (August 1997). 

Oettinger, Anthony G. Elements of Information Resources Policy: Library and Other Information 

Services. Prepared for the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. 

Cambridge, MA: Program on Information Technologies and Public Policy, Harvard University (1975). 

"Online Government Information: GPO Access." Government Information Insider, Vol. 4 (Spring 

1995): 2-13. 

Orr, Tony Lee. "DOT Gives Users Free Ride to Online Research Data." Government Computer News

(April 3, 2000); 13; http://www.gcn.com/vol19_no7/news/1630-1.html. 

Owen, Diana, and others. "Congress and the Internet." Harvard International Journal of Press 

Politics, Vol. 4, no. 2 (Spring 1999): 10-29. 

Peek, Robin P., editor. "Perspectives on Electronic Publishing." American Society of Information 

Science Journal, Vol. 45 (December 1994): 727-799. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-238 

"Pennsylvania's Statewide Initiative Links Libraries, Services, Elders." Perspective on Aging, Vol. 23, 

no. 3 (July-September 1994): 19-20. 

Perritt, Henry H., Jr. Electronic Public Information and the Public's Right to Know. Washington, DC: 

Benton Foundation and Bauman Family Foundation (1990). 

Perritt, Henry H., Jr. "The Information Highway: On Ramps, Checkpoints and Tollbooths." 

Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 13, no. 2 (1996): 143-158. 

Perritt, Henry H., Jr. "Open Government." Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 14 (1997): 397-

406. 

Pettigrew, Karen E. "Lay Information Provisions in Community Settings: How Community Health 

Nurses Disseminate Human Service Information to the Elderly." Library Quarterly, Vol. 70, no. 1: 47-

85. 

Pinelli, Thomas E.; Barclay, Rebecca O.; Kennedy, John M.; and Bishop, Ann P. Knowledge Diffusion 

in the U.S. Aerospace Industry, Parts A and B (2 volumes). Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing 

Company (c1997). 

Plackett, Mark. "Using Information Technology: Five Case Studies." Management Information 

Service Report, Vol. 27 (June 1995): 1-15. 

Platt, Nina. "GPO Access: Government at its Best." Database, Vol. 21, no. 2 (April/May 1998): 41-43. 

Plocher, David. "The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: A Second Chance for Information Resources 

Management." Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 13, no. 1 (1996): 35-50. 

Price, William H. "The Electronic Envelope." Information Management Review, Vol. 2, no. 2 (Fall 

1986): pp 43-53. 

"Priorities for Disseminating Electronic Products and Services from the Government Printing Office." 

DttP: Documents to the People, Vol. 20, no. 2 (June 1992): 78-79. 

Reidenberg, Joel R. "Lex Informatica: The Formulation of Information Policy Rules Through 

Technology." Texas Law Review, Vol. 76 (1998): 78-79. 

Relyea, Harold C. Paperwork Reduction Act Reauthorization and Government Information 

Management Issues. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Government and Finance Division, 

August 14, 2000. 

Relyea, Harold C. The Presidency and Information Policy. New York, NY: Center for the Study of the 

Presidency, 1981. 

Ren, Wen-Hua. "U.S. Government Information Need, Awareness and Searching: A Study of Small 

Business Executives." Journal of Government Information, Vol. 26, no. 5 (September/October 1999): 

453-466. 

Rochell, Carlton C., editor. An Information Agenda for the 1980s. Chicago, IL: American Library 

Association (1981). 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-239 

Rowlands, Ian H. Understanding Information Policy. New Providence, NJ: Bowker-Saur (1997). 

Rubin, Michael Rogers. Information Economics and Policy in the United States. Littleton, CO: 

Libraries Unlimited, Inc. (1983). 

Ryan, Susan M. Downloading Democracy: Government Information in an Electronic Age. Cresskill, 

NJ: Hampton Press, Inc. (1996). 

Ryan, Susan M. "Square Peg in a Round Hole: Electronic Information and the Federal Depository 

Library Program." Journal of Government Information, Vol. 24 (September/October 1997): 361-375. 

Sandburg, Brenda. "Madness in PTO's E-Commerce Method? It Doesn't Take a Genius to Try Out Old 

Ideas on the Net, But It Can Win You a Patent." IP Magazine (August 27, 1998). 

Saunders, Laverna M., editor. "The Evolving Virtual Library II." Medford, NJ: Information Today, 

Inc. (1999). 

Schorr, Herbert, and Stolfo, Salvatore J. Towards the Digital Government of the 21st Century: A 

Report from the Workshop on Research and Development Opportunities in Federal Information 

Services. University of Southern California, Information Science Institute, June 24, 1997; Marina Del 

Ray, CA: 

Schwartz, Candy, and Rorvig, Mark, editors. "Digital Collections: Implications for Users, Funders, 

Developers and Maintainers." Proceedings for the 60th American Society for Information Science 

Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, November 1-6, 1997. Vol. 34. Information Today, Inc. (1997). 

Schwartz, John. "U.S. Cities Race Gap in Use of Internet; Clinton Bemoans 'Digital Divide'." 

Washington Post (July 9, 1999): A1. 

Seavey, Charles A. "Fixing the Depository Library Systems: Some Thoughts on Vacuum Cleaners, the 

Manifesto, and the State of the Government Information Distribution System, with a Model Proposal 

to Remedy the Various Ills Therein: A Viewpoint." Journal of Government Information, Vol. 21 

(March/April 1994): 77-81. 

Shill, Harold B. "NTIS: Potential Roles and Government Information Policy Frameworks." Journal of 

Government Information, Vol. 23 (1996): 287-298. 

Shrybman, Steven. "Information, Commodification, and the World Trade Organization." IFLA 

Journal, Vol. 26, no. 5/6 (2000), page 361. 

Slabodkin, Gregory. "DOD Puts Commanders in Charge of Web Sites." Government Computer News, 

Vol. 18 (January 11, 1999): 3. 

Slamecka, Vladimir, and McCarn, Davis. The Information Resources and Services of the United 

States: An Introduction for Developing Countries. Washington, DC: U.N. Conference on Science and 

Technology for Development, U.S. Department of State (1979). 

Smith, Bruce; Fraser, Bruce I.; and McClure, Charles R. "Federal Information Policy and Access to 

Web-Based Federal Information." The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 26, no. 4: 274-281. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-240 

Smith, Diane. "New Technologies and Old-Fashioned Economics: Creating a Brave New World for 

U.S. Government Information Distribution and Use." Journal of Government Information, Vol. 26, no. 

1 (1997): 21-24. 

Smith, Diane. The Right to Technology Under the Law of Special Education: Advocacy Tips, Special 

Education Basics, and Assistive Technology Specifics. Paper presented at the 1998 California State 

University (Northridge) Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference (February 16, 1998); 

http://www.dinf.org/csun_98/csun98_092.htm. 

Smith, Kent. Federal Information Policy--Putting It All Together. Miles Conrad Lecture. Philadelphia, 

PA: National Federation of Abstracting and Information Services (February 24, 1998). 

Sorokin, Leo T. "The Computerization of Government Information: Does it Circumvent Public Access 

Under the Freedom of Information Act and the Depository Library Program?" Columbia Journal of 

Law and Social Problems, Vol. 24 (1991): 267. 

Special Libraries Association. State-of-the-Art in Government Information: An Endangered Resource 

of the Electronic Age. Papers Presented at the First Annual State-of-the-Art Institute, Washington, DC, 

October 19-22, 1986. Ann Arbor, MI: Books on Demand (1986). 

Spotilla, John T. Achieving Electronic Government: Instruction for Plans to Implement the 

Government Paperwork Elimination Act; Memorandum for Chief Information Officers. Washington, 

DC: Office of Management and Budget; http://ec.fed.gov/documents/gpeaplan.htm. 

Sprehe, J. Timothy. "Find a Balance Between Information Access, Security." Federal Computer Week, 

Vol. 13 (August 2, 1999): 25. 

Sprehe, J. Timothy. "Issues in Public Access: The Solomons Conference." November 12, 1992. 

Available through Sprehe Information Management, Washington, DC; hereinafter Sprehe Statement. 

Government Publications Review, Vol. 20 (1993): 152-272. 

Sprehe, J. Timothy. "The U.S. Census Bureau's Data Access and Dissemination System (DADS)."

Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 14, no. 1 (1997): 91-100. 

Sprehe, J. Timothy. "Ways to Think about User Fees for Federal Information Products." Government 

Information Quarterly, Vol. 13, no. 2 (1996): 175-186. 

Stiglitz, Joseph E.; Orszag, Peter R.; and Orszag, Jonathan M. The Role of Government in a Digital 

Age. Commissioned by the Computer & Communications Industry Association. Washington, DC: 

Computer and Communications Industry Association (October 2000); 

http://www.ccianet.org/digitalgovstudy/main.html. 

Sullivan, Jennifer. "Net Overloads U.S. Patent Agency." Wired News (July 13, 1999); 

http://www.wired.com/news/print_version/politics/story/19473.html?wnpg+all. 

Tallarico, Jennifer. "Information Services and Electronic Commerce." Business America, Vol. 119, no. 

1 (January 1998): 34-35. 

Trubow, George B. "Watching the Watchers: The Coordination of Federal Privacy Policy." Software 

Law Journal, Vol. 3 (1989): 391-411. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-241 

Turock, Betty J., and Henderson, Carol C. "A Model for a New Approach to Federal Government 

Information Access and Dissemination." Journal of Government Information, Vol. 23 (1996): 227-

240. 

Uhlir, Paul. Framework for the Preservation of and Permanent Public Access to USDA Digital 

Publications. Washington, DC: National Academy Press (November 1997). 

University of California, Berkeley, Library. Electronic Information No Longer Available on the 

Internet (May 10, 2000); http://lib.berkeley.edu/GODORT/2k0508missing.html. 

US Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on 

Government Management, Information and Technology. Hearing on Government Printing Office and 

Executive Branch Information Dissemination, May 8, 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office (1997). 

US Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform. A Citizen's Guide to 

Using the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974 to Request Government Records: 

First Report. House Report 105-37. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (March 20, 

1997). 

US Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform. Electronic Freedom of 

Information Amendments of 1996. House Report 104-795. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government 

Printing Office (September 17, 1996). 

US Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on 

Government Management, Information, and Technology. FirstGov.gov: Is it a Good Idea? Hearings 

before the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, October 2, 

2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (2000). 

US Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on 

Procurement and Printing. The Government Printing Office Act of 1990. Hearings before the 

Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing, March 7 and 8, 

1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1990). 

US Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on 

Procurement and Printing. Oversight of the Government Printing Office General Sales Program. 

Hearings before the Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Procurement and 

Printing, July 26 and 27, 1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1990). 

US Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on 

Procurement and Printing. Title 44 U.S.C. Review. Hearings before the Committee on House 

Administration Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing, May 23, 24, and June 28, 29, 1989. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1989). 

US Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, 

Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology. Federal Scientific and Technical Information 

Policy. Hearing before the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, 

Research and Technology, October 12, 1989. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office 

(1989). 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-242 

US Congress, Joint Committee on Printing. Provision of Federal Government Publications in 

Electronic Format to Federal Depository Libraries. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Depository 

Library Access to Federal Automated Data Bases. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office 

(1984). 

US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). Federal Scientific and Technical Information 

in an Electronic Age: Opportunities and Challenges. OTA Staff Paper. Washington, DC: Government 

Printing Office (October 1989). 

US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Informing the Nation: Federal Information 

Dissemination in an Electronic Age. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1988). 

US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Informing the Nation: Federal Information 

Dissemination in an Electronic Age: Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office 

(1988). 

US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Intellectual Property Rights in an Age of Electronics 

and Information. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1986). 

US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Rural America at the Crossroads: Networking for 

the Future. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1991). 

US Congress, Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs. OMB's Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs Information Management, Paperwork and Regulatory Review. Hearing before the 

Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, May 19, 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office (1995). 

US Congress, Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs. Reauthorization of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. Hearings before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on 

Government Information and Regulation, Management and Technology Issues, June 12, 1989; 

Purpose, Effectiveness, and Need for Changes, June 16, 1989. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office (1989). 

US Department of Agriculture, Office of Information Resources Management. Interagency Workshop 

on Public Access: A Summary Report, Solomons, Maryland, November 18-19, 1991. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Information Resources Management (N.D.). 

US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. "BEA Resources on Internet Web Site, 

1999." Survey of Current Business, Vol. 79, no. 3 (March 1999): 22-26. 

US Department of Commerce, National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council. A Nation of 

Opportunity: Realizing the Promise of the Superhighway. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office (1996). 

US Department of Commerce, National Information Infrastructure Taskforce. The Information 

Infrastructure: Reaching Society's Goals: Report of the Information Infrastructure Task Force 

Committee on Applications and Technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office 

(1994). 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-243 

US Department of Commerce, National Information Infrastructure Taskforce. Progress Report to 

Secretary of Commerce Ronald H. Brown, Chairman, Information Infrastructure Task Force.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (September 1993-94). 

US Department of Commerce, National Information Infrastructure Taskforce. Putting the Information 

Infrastructure to Work: Report of the Information Infrastructure Task Force Committee on 

Applications and Technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1994). 

US Department of Commerce, National Information Infrastructure Task Force. Barriers to the 

Creation and Use of Library Applications (N.D.); http://nii.nist.gov/nii/applic/lbr/lbrbar.html. 

US Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Falling 

Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office 

(1999). 

US Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Issues 

in Information Policy. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1981). 

US Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 

Information Technology Advisory Committee. Interim Report to the President. Arlington, VA: 

National Coordination Office for Computing, Information, and Communications (August 1998). 

US Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General. Inspector General's Semiannual Report to 

the Congress of March 31, 1999: 14. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce (1999). 

US Department of Defense. Distribution Statements on Technical Documents. DOD Directive 

5230.24. Washington, DC: Department of Defense (March 18, 1987). 

US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1997 Customer Survey Report: 

How Do We Measure Up? NCES 1999-451. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics 

(January 1999). 

US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. World Wide Web 

Server Standards and Guidelines. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education (1996). 

US Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information. Scientific and Technical 

Information Policy Implementation Under 0MB Circular A-130; Report of Agency Findings and 

Recommendations. DOE/OSTI-1 1686. DE 950 11601 OAR. Oak Ridge, TN: Department of Energy 

(May 1995). 

US Department of Health and Human Services. Fifth Solomons Interagency on Public Access: 

Working with the Public to Ensure Public Access to Federal Information in an Electronic Age.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (September 1994). 

US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy 

and Research. Effective Dissemination of Health and Clinical Information to Consumers: Annotated 

Bibliography. AHCPR Publication No. 95-0055. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (May 1995). 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-244 

US Department of the Interior, Office of Information Resources Management. Interagency Conference 

on Public Access. U.S. Geological Survey. Proceedings of Fourth Conference. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Office of Information Resources Management (April 26, 1993). 

US Domestic Council Committee on the Right of Privacy. National Information Policy: Report to the 

President of the United States. [The Rockefeller Report.] Washington, DC: U.S. National Commission 

on Libraries and Information Science (1976). 

US Environmental Protection Agency. "Policy on Public Access to EPA Information." IRM Policy 

Manual, Chapter 21. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency (February 1998); 

http://www.epa.gov/irmpoli8/polman/chaptr21.htm. 

US Executive Office of the President. Classified National Security Information. Executive Order 

12958. Washington, DC: The White House (1995). 

US Executive Office of the President. Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: 

Federal Information Technology. Washington, DC: The White House (1996). 

US Executive Office of the President. Federal Information Technology. Executive Order 13011. 

Washington, DC: The White House (July 16, 1996); 

http://www.npr.gov/library/direct/orders/27aa.html.

US Executive Office of the President. Memorandum on Electronic Government. Presidential 

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Washington, DC: The White 

House (December 17, 1999). 

US Executive Office of the President. Memorandum on Use of Information Technology to Improve 

Our Society. Presidential Memoranda for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies.

Washington, DC: The White House (December 17, 1999). 

US Executive Office of the President. National Spatial Data Infrastructure. Executive Order 12906,

April 11, 1994. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Vol. 30 (April 18, 1994): 779-781. 

US Executive Office of the President. President's Memorandum on Privacy and Personal Information 

in Personal Records. Washington, DC: The White House (May 14, 1998). 

US Executive Office of the President. The White House at Work: Issuing a National Call to Action to 

Close the Digital Divide. Washington, DC: The White House, Office of the President (April 5, 2000). 

US Executive Office of the President, National Coordination Office for Information Technology 

Research and Development. Information Technology Research: Investing in Our Future, Final Report 

of the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee. Washington, DC: National 

Coordination Office for Information Technology Research and Development (1999); 

http://www.ccic.gov/ac/report/. 

US Executive Office of the President, National Coordination Office for Information Technology 

Research and Development. Transforming Access to Government Information Through Information 

Technology, Report of the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee, Panel on 

Transforming Government. Washington, DC: National Coordination Office for Information 

Technology Research and Development (August 31, 2000): 4. 

http://www.itrd.gov/ac/transform13x.pdf. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-245 

US Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology, Subcommittee on Electronic Dissemination of 

Statistical Data. Electronic Dissemination of Statistical Data. Sponsored by Office of Management 

and Budget Statistical Policy Office. Statistical Policy Working Paper 24. Washington, DC: Office of 

Management and Budget (November 1995); 

http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/stats.htm. 

US General Accounting Office. Defense Information Superiority: Progress Made, but Significant 

Challenges Remain. GAO/NSIAD/AIMD-98-257. (1998) 

US General Accounting Office. Federal Information: Agency Needs and Practices. Fact Sheet for the 

Chairman, Joint Committee on Printing. B231160.2. (September 1988). 

US General Accounting Office. Federal Information: Users' Current and Future Technology Needs: 

Fact Sheet for the Chairman, Joint Committee on Printing, U.S. Congress. GAO/GGD-89-20FS. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (November 30, 1988). 

US General Accounting Office. Implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act: Some Progress, but 

Many Problems Remain. GAO/GGD-83-35. (April 20, 1983). 

US General Accounting Office. Internet and Electronic Dial-up Bulletin Boards: Information 

Reported by Federal Organizations. GAO/GGD-97-86. (June 16, 1997). 

US General Accounting Office. National Archives: Preserving Electronic Records in an Era of 

Rapidly Changing Technology. GAO/GDD-99-94. (1999). 

US General Accounting Office. National Technical Information Service (NTIS') Financial Position 

Provides an Opportunity to Reassess Its Mission. GAO/GGD-00-147; B-284351; 

http://www.gao.gov/new.slems/gg00147.pdf. 

US General Accounting Office. Procurement: Government Printing Office Supply of Microfiche to 

Libraries Disrupted. Report to the Chairman and the Vice Chairman, Joint Committee on Printing. 

B2l333. (February 27, 1989). 

US General Accounting Office, General Government Division. Internet and Electronic Dial-up 

Bulletin Boards; Information Reported by Federal Organization. GGD-97-86. (1997) 

US Global Change Research Program. Policy Statements on Data Management for Global Change 

Research. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation (1991). 

US Government Printing Office. Biennial Report to Congress on the Status of GPO Access. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1999). 

US Government Printing Office. GPO 2001: Visions for a New Millennium. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. (1991). 

US Government Printing Office. Guidelines for Preparing and Submitting Electronic Design and PrePress Files. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1997); 

http://:www.access.gpo.gov/customer-service/index.html. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-246 

US Government Printing Office. Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a 

More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program: Report to the Congress. GPO Publication 

500.11. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (June 1996). 

US Government Printing Office. Web Site Design Guidelines for GPO Access. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office (2000). 

US Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents. Dissemination/Distribution Policy for 

the Federal Depository Library Program; Draft Policy. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office (October 6, 2000). 

US Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents. Format of Publications Distributed to 

Depository Libraries. Policy Statement No. SOD-13. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office (August 22, 1983). 

US Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Library Programs Service. 

"Dissemination of Information in Electronic Format to Federal Depository Libraries. Proposed Project 

Descriptions." Plan developed by the Government Printing Office in consultation with the Joint 

Committee on Printing, U.S. Congress. Administrative Notes, Vol. 9, no. 13 (July 1988), pages 1-26. 

US Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Library Programs Service. Electronic 

Federal Depository Library Program: Transition Plan, FY 1996-FY 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office (1995). 

US Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Library Programs Service. Managing 

the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office (October 1, 1998). 

US Library of Congress, National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped. Assistive 

Technology: A Selective Bibliography. Washington, DC: Library of Congress (March 2000). 

US Library of Congress, Federal Library and Information Center Committee. Federal Information 

Policies: Their Implementation and Implications for Information Access. A Summary of Proceedings 

Prepared by Adrian T. Higgins. Washington, DC: Library of Congress (1986). 

US National Aeronautics and Space Administration. "Mission Accomplished (NERAC, NASA Spinoff Venture Providing Information and Reference Services)." NASA Tech Briefs, Vol. 23, no. 3 (March 

1999): 20, 22. 

US National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA Information Resources Management 

Handbook. NHB-24l0.1E, N94-1594l/5. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (April 1992). 

US National Archives and Records Administration. General Records Schedule (GRS) 20. Washington, 

DC: National Archives and Records Administration (1998 and updates). 

US National Archives and Records Administration. Scheduling Electronic Copies of Program Records 

and Administrative Records Not Covered by the General Records Schedules (GRS). NARA Bulletin 

2000-01, October 11, 2000 [replaces Bulletin 99-04]. Washington, DC: National Archives and 

Records Administration; http://www.nara.gov/records/policy/b2001-01.html. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-247 

US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Information Age "Bill of Rights" 

Approved. News Release. Washington, DC: U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information 

Science (July 12, 1990). 

US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Libraries and the National 

Information Infrastructure: Proceedings of the 1994 Forum on Library and Information Services 

Policy. Sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics and the Office of Library Programs, 

U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information 

Science, May 16-17, 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1994). 

US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. National Program for Library and 

Information Services. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1975). 

US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Preliminary Assessment of the 

Proposed Closure of the National Technical Information Service (NTIS): A Report to the President 

and the Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (March 16, 2000). 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/ntis/presiden.pdf. 

US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Principles of Public Information. 

Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office (1990). 

http://www.nclis.gov/info/pripubin.html. Also published in the Federal Register, Vol. 55, no. 238 

(December 11, 1990): 50899-50900. 

US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Public Sector/Private Sector Task 

Force. Public Sector/Private Sector Interaction in Providing Information Services: Report to the 

NCLIS from the Public Sector/Private Sector Taskforce. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office (1982). 

US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Public Sector/Private Sector Task 

Force. Public Sector/Private Sector Interaction in Providing Information Services: Report to the 

NCLIS from the Public Sector/Private Sector Taskforce. A Reprint With Editorial Changes and 

Supplementary Material of a Report Originally Published in February 1982. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office (October 2000). http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/publpriv.html. 

US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Toward a National Program for 

Library and Information Services: Goals for Action. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office (1975). 

US National Council on Disability. Access to Multimedia Technology by People with Sensory 

Disabilities. Washington, DC: U.S. National Council on Disability (1998). 

US National Institute of Justice. Annual Report to Congress, 1997. NCJ-l7 1679. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice (1998). 

US National Security Council. National Policy for the Security of National Security Telecom and Info 

Systems. National Security Directive 42. Washington, DC: U.S. National Security Council (1990). 

US National Space Science Data Center. 1998 Annual Statistics and Highlights Report.

NSSDC/WDC-A-R and S 99-01. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(1999). 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-248 

US Office of Management and Budget, Guidance on the Government Information Locator Service. M98-05 Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Management and Budget (1998). 

US Office of Management and Budget. Instructions on Complying with the [President's] 

Memorandum [on Privacy and Personal Information in Personal Records]. M-99-05. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Office of Management and Budget (January 7, 1999). 

US Office of Management and Budget. Management of Federal Information Resources. OMB 

Circular A-130 Revised. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Management and Budget (November 30, 

2000). http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a130/a130appendix_iv.html. 

US Office of Management and Budget. OMB Survey of Agency Plans for E-Gov. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Office of Management and Budget (September 2000). 

US Office of Management and Budget. Scientific and Technical Information Policy Implementation 

under OMB Circular A-130: Report of Agency Findings and Recommendations. Submitted to Bruce 

McConnell at OMB by A-130 Implementation Guidelines Group for STI (CENDI) (May 1995). 

US Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Second Advance 

Notice of Further Policy Development on Dissemination of Information. Washington, DC: U.S. Office 

of Management and Budget (June 15, 1989). 

US President's Science Advisory Committee. Science, Government, and Information: The 

Responsibilities of the Technical Community and the Government in the Transfer of Information. 

[Weinberg Report.] A Report of The President's Science Advisory Committee (January 10, 1963). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963. 

United Nations. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Information for all 

Programme. Draft. Paris: UNESCO (May 19, 2000); 

http://www.unesco.org/webworld/future/contribute.shtml. 

Varlejs, Jana, editor. The Economics of Information in the 1990s. Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Co 

(1995). 

Viar and Company. Follow-on Review of Public Access Issues and Activities: Support to Inter-Agency 

Public Access Commission. Final Report. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

National Data Processing Division. Alexandria, VA: Viar and Company (May 21, 1991). 

Viar and Company. Review of Public Access Issues and Activities: Public Access to Electronic 

Information. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Data Processing Division. 

Alexandria, VA: Viar and Company (March 1990). 

Wakeman, Nick. "Most Businesses Embrace Proposed Fed Web Portal." Washington Technology, 

Vol. 24 (July 17, 2000); http://www.wtonline.com/vol15_no8/federal/1556-1.html. 

Wallace, Julia F. "Why Government Information?" Documents to the People, Vol. 28, no. 1 (Spring 

2000): 17-23. 

Washington Information Directory, 2000-2001. Washington, DC: CQ Press (July 2000). 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-249 

Ware, Willis H. Policy Considerations for Data Networks. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation 

(December 1993). 

Weissman, Ronald. Finding the Wood Among the Trees. Knowledge Management (May 1999). 

Westat, Inc. Report on the Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products. Prepared for 

the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science; Commissioned by the U.S. 

Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office (1999); http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/nclisassessment/report.html. 

Wharwood, David. "TCC on-line www.mac.doc.gov: Giving U.S. Exporters New Edge in World 

Market (Trade Compliance Center)." Business America, Vol. 119, no. 2 (February 1998): 6-8. 

White, John G. "Regulatory Development on the Information Superhighway." Proceedings of the 

Marine Safety Council, Vol. 55, no. 3 (July/September 1998): 59. 

Wilkinson, Patrick J. "Beyond the Federal Depository Library Program: Providing Access to 

Information from a Reinvented Government." Journal of Government Information, Vol. 23 (1996): 

411-417. 

Williams, Mark E. "Geriatric Medicine on the Information Superhighway: Opportunity or Road Kill?" 

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Vol. 43, no. 2 (February 1995): 184-186. 

Wilson, Don W. "Presidential Records: Evidence for Historians or Ammunition for Prosecutors."

Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 14 (1997): 347. 

"Wired for the Millennium: Interior Library Catalogue Goes Online." People, Land and Water 

Magazine, Vol. 5, no. 8 (October 1998): 16-17. 

Wood, Patricia. "The Business Impact of Government-wide Portals." Access America (September 7, 

2000); http://www.accessamerica.gov/docs/irmcoportals.html. 

Workshop for a Future Information Infrastructure for the Physical Sciences Agenda. Workshop Report 

on a Future Information Infrastructure for the Physical Sciences. The Facts of the Matter: Finding, 

Understanding, and Using Information About Our Physical World. Workshop hosted by the 

Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information, May 30-31, 2000. Washington, 

DC: Department of Energy; http://www.osti.gov/physicalsciences/wkshprpt. 

 

World Wide Web Federal Consortium. Guidelines and Best Practices. Washington, DC: World Wide 

Web Federal Consortium (1996); http://www.dtic.mil/staff/cthomps/guidelines. 

World Wide Web Home Page Guidelines and Best Practices; Executive Summary. Washington, DC: 

World Wide Web Federal Consortium (1996). 

World Wide Web Policy and Guidelines. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Library (1997); 

http://www.nal.usda.gov/general_info/webpolicy.html. 

Yoder, Eric. "Information Overload." Government Executive (August 2000): 69-75. 

Zagami, Anthony J. "Memorandum: 'Cost Sharing' for the Dissemination of Government Information 

in Electronic Formats." Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 8, no. 4 (1991): 387-391. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-250 

Zuidama, Julie S. Digital Democracy. Upland, PA: Diane Publishing (1998). 

Zwirn, Jerrold, compiled by. Accessing U.S. Government Information: Subject guide to jurisdiction of 

the executive and legislative branches. Belmont, CA: Greenwood Press (1996). 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-251 

APPENDIX 32. A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF NATIONAL INFORMATION POLICIES 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT INFORMATION POLICY DOCUMENTS 

Compiled by Toni Carbo, Dean, and Graduate Students,160

School of Information Sciences, University of Pittsburgh 

Updated in 2000 by Marilyn Ochoa 

Fox, Susannah. "Trust And Privacy Online: Why Americans Want to Rewrite the Rules," Report on 

the Internet Life, Washington, DC: The Pew Internet and American Life Project, August 20, 2000. 

National Academy of Public Administration. "(Itinerary Only) For an Issues Session in Preparation for 

NAPA Congressional Testimony: Exploiting Information Technology and Information Resources 

Management." July 19, 1995. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration, 1995. 

National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Committee on Intellectual Property Rights 

and the Emerging Information Infrastructure, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board. 

Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications. The Digital Dilemma: Intellectual 

Property in the Information Age. (Prepublication Copy). Washington DC: National Academy Press, 

2000. 

Perritt, Henry H. "Public Information in the National Information Infrastructure." Report to the 

Regulator Information Service Center, General Services Administration, and to the Administrator of 

the Office of Information And Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (May 20, 1994; 

Revised September 26, 1994). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1994. 

United States Congress. Computer Security Act. Public Law No. 100-235 [15 USC Chapter 7 and 40 

USC § 1441], 1988. 

United States. Congress. Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Public Law No. 105-304 [H.R. 2281], 

105th Cong., 2nd Session October 28, 1998. 

United States. Congress. E-FOIA: Electronic Freedom of Information Act. Public Law No. 104-231 [5 

USC § 552], 1996. 

United States. Congress. Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996. Public Law No. 

104-231 [H.R. 3802], 104th Cong., 2nd Session, October 2, 1996. 

United States. Congress. Electronic Signatures In Global and National Commerce Act. Public Law 

No. 106-229 [S. 761], 106th Cong., 2nd Session, June 30, 2000. 

United States. Congress. Federal Depository Library Program. [44 USC § 1901 et. seq.], 1851, 

amended 1972, 1978, 1994. 

 

160 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen32.pdf.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-252 

United States. Congress. Federal Records Act. [44 USC § 3301], October 22, 1968, amended October 

21, 1976. 

United States. Congress. FOIA: Freedom of Information Act. Public Law No. 89-554 [5 USC § 552], 

1966, amended 1974, 1976, 1978, 1984, 1986, 1996. 

United States. Congress. Government Paperwork Elimination Act. Public Law No. 105-277, Title 

XVII [44 USC § 3504], 1998. 

United States. Congress. Government Performance and Results Act. Public Law No. 103-62 [44 USC 

§ 1441], August 3, 1993. 

United States Congress. Government Printing Office Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act. 

Public Law No. 103-40 [44 USC Chapter 41], 103rd Cong., Second Session, 1993. 

United States. Congress. Information Technology Management Reform Act (Clinger-Cohen Act). 

Public Law No. 104-106 [40 USC § 1401] February 10, 1996. 

United States. Congress. "International Information Flow: Forging a New Framework." Thirty Second 

Report by the Committee on Government Operations. December 11, 1980. Washington, DC: US 

Government Printing Office, 1980. 

United States. Congress. Paperwork Reduction Act. Public Law No. 104-13 [44 USC § 35], May 22, 

1995. 

United States. Congress. Presidential Records Act. [44 USC § 2201-2207], November 4, 1978. 

United States. Congress. Privacy Act. Public Law No. 93-579 [5 USC § 552a], 1974. 

United States. Congress. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Public Law No. 103-62 [29 USC § 

794d], August 7, 1998. 

United States. Congress. Technological, Scientific, And Engineering Information Act, National 

Technical Information Act, American Technology Preeminence Act. Public Law No. 81-776, Public 

Law No. 100-519, and Public Law No. 102-245 [15 USC Chapters 23 and 63], September 9, 1950, 

October 24, 1988, and February 14, 1992. 

United States. Congress. Telecommunications Act of 1996. Public Law No. 104-104 [S. 652], February 

8, 1996. 

United States. Congress. Telecommunications Authorization Act of 1992. Public Law No. 102-538 

[H.R. 6180], October 27, 1992. 

 

United States. Congress. Wireless Communications And Public Safety Act of 1999. Public Law No. 

106-81 [S. 800], October 26, 1999. 

United States. Congress. Committee on Governmental Affairs, Committee on Government Operations, 

and the Committee on the Budget. "Implementation of NPR Recommendations and Relation to GAO 

and OMB Designated High-Risk Areas as of June and July 1994." September 2, 1994. Washington, 

DC: US Government Printing Office, 1994. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-253 

United States. Congress. Senate. S. 946: Information Technology Management Reform Act (Introduced 

in the Senate), June 20, 1995. 104th Congress, 1st Session. 

United States. Congress. General Accounting Office. Abstracts of Reports and Testimony. February 

1997. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1997. 

United States. Congress. General Accounting Office. Information Superhighway: Issues Affecting 

Development. A Report. September 1994. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1994. 

United States. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on Science and Astronautics. The 

Management of Information and Knowledge. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1970. 

United States. Congress. Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. Hearing Before the Joint 

Committee on the Organization of Congress. Operations of the Congress: Testimony of House and 

Senate Leaders. 103rd Cong., 1st Session. January 26, 1993. Washington, DC: US Government Printing 

Office, 1993. 

United States. Congress. Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. Operations of the 

Congress: Testimony of the Current Representatives on the Structure of the House of Representatives. 

Hearing Before the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. 103rd Cong., 1st Session. 

February 4, 1993. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1993. 

United States. Congress. Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. Organizational Meeting. 

103rd Cong., 1st Session. January 6, 1993. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1993. 

United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Electronic Enterprises: Looking to the 

Future. May 1994. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1994. 

United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Making Government Work: Electronic 

Delivery of Federal Services. September 1993. Superintendent of Documents. Washington, DC: US 

Government Printing Office, 1993. 

United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. "Publications of the Office of Technology 

Assessment." March 1994. Superintendent of Documents. Washington, DC: US Government Printing 

Office, 1994. 

United States. Congress. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Information Technology: A 

Statistical Study of Acquisition Time. Report to the Ranking Minority Member. June 20, 1995. 

Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1995. 

United States. Department of Commerce, Information Infrastructure Task Force. National Information 

Infrastructure. Progress Report, September 1993-1994, September 9, 1994. Washington, DC: US 

Government Printing Office, 1994. 

United States. Department of Commerce, National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council. 

Common Ground: Fundamental Principles for the National Information Infrastructure. March 1995. 

Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1995. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-254 

United States. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology. The 

Information Infrastructure: Reaching Society's Goals: Report of the Information Infrastructure Task 

Force Committee on Application and Technology. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. 

1994. 

United States. Department of Commerce. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Putting the 

Information Infrastructure to Work: Report of the Information Infrastructure Task Force Committee 

on Application and Technology. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. 1994. 

United States. Department of Commerce, Office of Information Resources Management. Interagency 

Public Access Conference: A Summary Report. Interagency Conference on Public Access, Solomons, 

Maryland, September 22-23, 1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of 

Information Resources Management. 

United States. Executive Office of the President. Classified National Security Information. Executive 

Order 12958. 1995, amended November 19, 1999 By Executive Order 12356 (1982). 

United States. Executive Office of the President. Federal Information Technology. Executive Order 

13011. 1996. 

United States. Executive Office of the President. Memorandum on Electronic Government. 

Presidential Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments And Agencies. December 17, 

1999. 

United States. Executive Office of the President. Memorandum on Use of Information Technology to 

Improve Our Society. Presidential Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and 

Agencies. December 17, 1999. 

United States. Executive Office of the President. Privacy and Personal Information on Federal 

Records. President's Memorandum. May 14, 1998. Instructions For Complying with President's 

Memorandum. OMB M-99-05. January 7, 1999. 

United States. Executive Office of the President. Setting Customer Service Standards. Executive Order 

12862. September 11, 1993. 

United States. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. Establishment of 

a Government Information Locator Service (GILS). OMB Bulletin 95-01. 1994 (Expired In 1997). 

United States. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. Guidance on the 

Government Information Locator Service. OMB Memorandum 98-05. 1998. 

United States. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. Management of 

Federal Information Resources. OMB Circular A-130. 1996. 

United States. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. Privacy Policies 

on Federal Web Sites. OMB Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. 

OMB M-99-18. June 2, 1999. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-255 

United States. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. Uniform 

Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, 

Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations. OMB Circular A-110. November 19, 1993, amended 

September 30, 1999. 

United States. General Accounting Office. Information Dissemination: Federal CD-ROM Titles—

What Are Available and How They Were Priced. June 1993. Washington, DC: US Government 

Printing Office, 1993. 

United States. General Accounting Office. Information Superhighway: Issues Affecting Development. 

Report to the Congress from the United States General Accounting Office. September 1994. 

Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1994. 

United States. General Accounting Office. Information Superhighway: An Overview of Technology 

Challenges. January 1995. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1995. 

United States. General Accounting Office. Office of Information Management and Communications. 

Abstracts of Reports and Testimony: Fiscal Year 1996. February 1997. Washington, DC: US 

Government Printing Office, 1997. 

United States. General Services Administration. Memorandum For Chief Information Officers and 

Federal Webmasters: Top Privacy Principles for Federal Web Sites. 1998. Washington, DC: US 

Government Printing Office, 1998. 

United States. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Advocates of Internet Fear Drive 

to Restrict Extremists' Access. April 28, 1995. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 

1995. 

United States. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. An Atlas of Information Services. 

November 1, 1994. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1994. 

United States. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. The Complete Survival Guide to 

the Information Superhighway. May 1994. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1994. 

United States. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. The CompuServe Edge: Delicate 

Data Balance. November 29, 1994. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1994. 

United States. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. A Cyperspace Atlas: America 

Online. November 15, 1994. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1994. 

United States. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Despite a New Plan for Cooling 

it Off, Cybersex Stays Hot. March 26, 1995. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1995. 

United States. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Fact Sheet: Getting Started on 

The Internet (Reproduced with Permission of the Internet Information Services of the National 

Science Foundation). November 1994. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1994. 

United States. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Fear of 'Two-Tiered' Society 

Splits Senate Commerce. April 1, 1995. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1995. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-256 

United States. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Hate, Murder, and Mayhem on 

the Net. May 12, 1995. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1995. 

United States. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Helping Children Avoid 

Mudholes. 1995. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1995. 

United States. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Return to Sender. April 1, 1995. 

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1995. 

United States. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Security is Lost in Cyberspace. 

1995. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1995. 

United States. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. US Schools Found Lagging in 

Vital Technologies. April 5, 1995. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1995. 

United States. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Welcome to Cyberia: An Internet 

Guide. May 12, 1994. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1994. 

United States. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Glenn J. Mcloughlin, Science 

Policy Research Division. The National Information Infrastructure: The Federal Role. April 6, 1995 

(Updated). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1995. 

United States. National Archives and Records Administration. Electronic Records Management. 

NARA Bulletin 2000-02 (Replaces Bulletin 99-04). December 27, 1999. 

United States. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Information Literacy and 

Education for the 21st Century: Toward an Agenda for Action. April 14-16, 1989, held in Leesburg, 

VA. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1989. 

United States. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Moving Toward More 

Effective Public Internet Access: The 1998 National Survey of Public Library Outlet Internet 

Connectivity. March 1999. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1999. 

 

United States. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. NCLIS Principles of 

Public Information. Adopted June 29, 1990. Washington, DC. 

United States. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. The 1998 National Survey 

of U.S. Public Library Outlet Internet Connectivity: Final Report. September 1998. Washington, DC. 

United States. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Policy Issues and 

Strategies Affecting Public Libraries in the Networked Environment: Moving Beyond Connectivity. 

December 1997. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1997. 

United States. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Preliminary Assessment of 

the Proposed Closure of the National Technical Information Service (NTIS): A Report to the President 

and the Congress. March 16, 2000. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2000. 

United States. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Public Libraries and the 

Internet: Study Results, Policy Issues, and Recommendations. Final Report. June 1994. Washington, 

DC. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-257 

United States. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Public Libraries and the 

Internet 2000: Summary Findings and Data Tables. Prepared by Dr. John Carlo Bertot and Dr. 

Charles R. McClure. September 20, 2000. 

United States. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Report on the Assessment 

of Electronic Government Information Products. As Prepared by Westat, Inc. March 30, 1999. 

Washington, DC: Office of Government Printing, 1999. 

United States. National Research Council. Office of Internet Affairs, Bridge Builders: African 

Experiences with Information and Communications Technology. Washington, DC: National Academy 

Press, 1996. 

 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-258 

APPENDIX 33. INDEX TO A COMPILATION OF RECENT FEDERAL STATUTES 

PERTAINING TO PUBLIC INFORMATION DISSEMINATION 

Compiled by Sarah T. Kadec, NCLIS Consultant161

Based on Research Performed by Margaret Hansen and Blane Dessy 

Library U.S. Department of Justice 

As part of its Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination, the National 

Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) was charged with identifying reforms 

necessary for improvement in the dissemination of government information in the electronic era. In 

addition, Senator Lieberman specifically requested that the Commission review the Paperwork 

Reduction Act and make recommendations relative to its anticipated reauthorization in FY 2001. 

The Commission understood that a major task in the assessment would be the identification of current 

laws and regulations that impact this important area of government responsibility. To do this, it was 

necessary to examine laws and regulations that govern dissemination, both government-wide and by 

specific agencies. Extensive use was made of the earlier "Compilation of Statutes Authorizing 

Dissemination of Government Information to the Public" prepared by the Congressional Research 

Service that was issued March 29, 1996.162 

The Commission feels strongly that improvements in the dissemination of government information to 

the public cannot be made without changes in existing, often contradictory, laws under which the 

individual agencies and the government as a whole now operate. 

Due to the time constraints in the present study, it was impossible for the Commission to complete a 

comprehensive review and update of the 1996 CRS compilation. However, the Library Staff of the 

Department of Justice, particularly Margaret Hansen and Blane Dessy, undertook a search of 

WESTLAW to identify major pieces of legislation from 1995 through mid-2000 that pertained to 

information dissemination. This search identified 52 Public Laws that placed requirements on agencies 

and specific programs for the collection and dissemination of information to specialized audiences or 

to the public in general. 

The Commission considers this statutory examination to be extremely important. It also recognized 

that it was not possible to effectively conclude such an examination during the course of this study. 

Therefore it chose to provide in this appendix an index by category of the relevant sections of the 

public laws passed during the 104th through the 106th Congress and to defer the preparation of a more 

comprehensive compilation. The further identification of these statutes, along with extracts of the 

relevant text, will be issued as a separate volume in late February or early March 2001.163 

 

161 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen33.pdf. 162 Jane Bortnick Griffith, Harold C. Relyea and Frances A. Buffalo, Compilation of Statutes Authorizing Dissemination of 

Government Information to the Public, Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service (March 29, 

1996). This compilation was prepared for the Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More 

Electronic Federal Depository Library Program; Report to the Congress (GPO Publication 500.11), Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office, 1996. 

163 Appendix 35 is in Volume 4 of this study; it is available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol4.pdf. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-259 

The classification scheme developed by the Commission is subdivided into two major categories. The 

first category (I) deals with the end result or objective that Congress endeavored to accomplish by 

passing the law, and the second category (II) deals with the means (the information vehicle) prescribed 

by Congress for accomplishing the end result. 

The two general categories and seven specific categories used in this study are as follows: 

I. Classification based on the end result congress intended 

I.A. Publicizing the entitlement to and procedures for applying for a tangible government public 

benefit or service. 

I.B. Publicizing opportunities for the private sector to do business with or for the federal government, 

with itself domestically, or abroad. 

I.C. Publicizing and disseminating the results of government's performance and operations. 

I.D. Publicizing federal level actions, decisions, and opportunities through inter and intragovernmental information interchanges. 

II. Classification based on the means congress prescribed in the statute 

II.A. Enacting a law to (1) broadly facilitate public information access to government information 

and/or (2) encourage agency dissemination of government information to the public. 

II.B. Establishing and maintaining a general government information facility, source, network, or 

other resource, both pre-electronic and electronic, to assist, inform, enlighten, or educate the 

public. 

II.C. Establishing, making available and accessible, and periodically updating the data or information 

content of a specific information service, system, or other resource impacting the public. 

 

It is apparent from the Agency surveys received as a part of this study that not all agencies recognize 

their responsibilities under general government-wide requirements for information dissemination. This 

may be due to their overriding concern to meet their obligations under specific authorizing and 

program legislation. Thus it is essential that Congress make clear its intent that government 

information to the public is a responsibility of every agency through specific language in the 

authorizing legislation for each agency.164 Congress could then eliminate language to this effect in 

many of its other statutes—those covering specific issues of general concern (such as health and 

consumer safety) and agency programs (such as soil conservation and water pollution). A central 

office responsible for information dissemination could eliminate the need for many of these individual 

pieces of legislation.165 

It is obvious from what has been identified below, that much more needs to be done. A large body of 

laws and regulations need to be examined and brought into line with the most efficient and effective 

ways of disseminating government information to the public through the numerous technologies 

available today. This review and analysis should begin as soon as possible before additional statutes 

 

164 This is addressed in Recommendation 3 in Volume 1, http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol1.pdf. 165 This is addressed in Recommendation 2 in Volume 1, http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol1.pdf. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-260 

further fragment information programs meant to assist the public in participating in governmental 

processes and in improving the quality of life for all Americans. 

This cursory examination of existing laws shows clearly that the frequency with which Congress feels 

the need to impose requirements for information dissemination on agency after agency is a large part 

of the problem the public has in finding and accessing government information. That a re-examination 

of the existing statutes is not only needed, but necessary, is clear. The Commission believes that 

further identification and analysis is necessary to adequately address overlap, duplication, 

contradictions and fragmentation in the existing laws.166

INDEX OF STATUTES BY CATEGORY 

As an integral part of the its Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination, the 

Commission attempted to identify pertinent laws related to information dissemination passed since the 

Congressional Research Service completed its Compilation of Statutes Authorizing Dissemination of 

Government Information to the Public.

167 That compilation included laws in effect at the end of 1995. 

The entries in this index are arranged under the category assigned to each pertinent section of a law. 

The entries include the public law number, its title and date of enactment. Under each law, the section 

pertaining to information dissemination is identified, followed by the appropriate Statutes-at-Large 

citation. The information provided should permit a user to locate the pertinent portion of any of the 

laws identified. 

I. Classification based on the end result congress intended

I.A. Publicizing the entitlement to and procedures for applying for a tangible government public 

benefit or service:

Public Law 104-182 – Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, August 6, 1996. 

Sec. 119(f)(4)(D). 110 STAT. 1649 

Public Law 105-114 – Veterans' Benefits Act of 1997, November 21, 1997. 

Sec. 202(b)(2)(D). 111 STAT. 2283 

Public Law 105-135 – Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997, December 2, 1997. 

Sec. 709. 111 STAT. 2638 

Public Law 105-244 – Higher Education Amendments of 1998, October 7, 1998. 

Sec. 486(a). 112 STAT. 1741 

Sec. 486(c)(2) and (c)(3). 112 STAT. 1742 

Sec. 490(C)(j)(2). 112 STAT. 1755 

Sec. 810(b). 112 STAT. 1808 

 

166 This is addressed in Recommendation 3 in Volume 1, http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol1.pdf. 167 Griffith, op. cit. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-261 

Public Law 106-170 – Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, December 17, 

1999. 

Sec. 1149(a)(2)(B)(i). 113 STAT. 1887 

I.B. Publicizing opportunities for the private sector to do business with or for the federal 

government, with itself domestically, or abroad

Public Law 104-127 – Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 

April 4, 1996. 

Sec. 747(e)(4)(C)(ii). 110 STAT. 1126 

Public Law 105-17 – Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, June 4, 1997. 

Sec. 682(a). 111 STAT. 149 

Public Law 105-20 – Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997, June 27, 1997. 

Sec. 1033. 111 STAT. 230 

Public Law 105-135 – Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997, December 2, 1997. 

Sec. 501(b)(4)(C). 111 STAT. 2622 

Public Law 105-178 – Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, June 9, 1998. 

Sec. 5505(c)(2)(F). 112 STAT. 441 

Public Law 105-185 – Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, June 23, 

1998. 

Sec. 403(c). 112 STAT. 568 

Sec. 403(c)(4). 112 STAT. 569 

Sec. 403(d), (d)(2) and (d)(4). 112 STAT. 569 

Sec. 403(f). 112 STAT. 569 

Sec. 408(c). 112 STAT. 575 

Public Law 105-220 – Workforce Investment Act of 1998, August 7, 1998. 

Sec. 16. 112 STAT. 1114 

Public Law 105-244 – Higher Education Amendments of 1998, October 7, 1998. 

Sec. 120(e)(1). 112 STAT. 1598 

Sec. 120(f)(3)(A)(ii). 112 STAT. 1599 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-262 

Public Law 105-278 – Charter School Expansion Act of 1998, October 22, 1998. 

Sec. 3(d)(2)(7). 112 STAT. 2685 

Sec. 3(d)(6)(A). 112 STAT. 2685 

Sec. 10305(a)(5). 112 STAT. 2687 

Public Law 106-50 – Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999, 

August 17, 1999. 

Sec. 604(a)(2) and (3). 113 STAT. 249 

I.C. Publicizing and disseminating the results of government's performance and operations.

Public Law 104-50 – Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996, 

November 15, 1995. 

Sec. 345. 109 STAT. 459 

Public Law 104-127 – Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 

April 4, 1996. 

Sec. 261(a)(5)(C). 110 STAT. 972 

Public Law 104-134 –Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, April 26, 

1996 

Sec. 520(b)(3). 110 STAT. 1321-250 

Public Law 104-193 – Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, 

August 22, 1996. 

Sec. 413(c). 110 STAT. 2153 

Sec. 731(a)(1). 110 STAT. 2305 

Public Law 104-262 – Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, October 9, 1996. 

Sec. 334(h). ref. 7320. 110 STAT. 3203 

Sec. 334(b)(3). ref. 7320. 110 STAT. 3204 

Public Law 104-297 – Sustainable Fisheries Act, October 11, 1996. 

Sec. 404(b)(4). 110 STAT. 3610 

Sec. 404(d). 110 STAT. 3610 

Sec. 401(a). 110 STAT. 3617 

Public Law 104-324 – Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996, October 19, 1996. 

Sec. 203. 110 STAT. 3907 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-263 

Public Law 105-17 – Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, June 4, 1997. 

Sec. 607(d)(1). 111 STAT. 48 

Sec. 611(i)(5)(D). 111 STAT. 60 

Sec. 635(a)(6). 111 STAT. 109 

Sec. 651(a)(6)(G). 111 STAT. 124 

Sec. 672(c)(2)(D). 111 STAT. 138 

Sec. 672(d)(2)(E). 111 STAT. 138 

Sec. 673(d)(2)(E). 111 STAT. 141 

Sec. 673(d)(2)(G). 111 STAT. 141 

Sec.673(d)(2)(J). 111 STAT. 141 

Sec. 681(a)(1). 111 STAT. 146 

Sec. 681(a)(3). 111 STAT. 146 

Sec. 687(b)(2)(F) and (G). 111 STAT. 155 

Sec. 687(c)(3) and (4). 111 STAT. 155 

Public Law 105-78 – Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, November 13, 1997. 

Sec. 49B(c)(2)(B)(ii). 111 STAT. 1520 

Public Law 105-115 – Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, November 21, 

1997. 

Sec. 506(b)(2)(B). 111 STAT. 2309 

Sec. 506(b)(3)(D). 111 STAT. 2310 

Sec. 506(d)(1). 111 STAT. 2310 

Sec. 551(a). 111 STAT. 2356 

Sec. 551(b)(3) and (b)(4). 111 STAT. 2357 

Sec. 551(b)(6) and (b)(6)(A)(ii). 111 STAT. 2357 

Sec. 551(b)(6)(A)(v) and (A)(vi). 111 STAT. 2357 

Sec. 552(a), (a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B). 111 STAT. 2358 

Sec. 552(b)(4). 111 STAT. 2358 

Sec. 553(a) and (a)(1). 111 STAT. 2359 

Sec. 553(b). 111 STAT. 2359 

Sec. 554(a) and (b). 111 STAT. 2359 

Sec. 554(c)(1). 111 STAT. 2359 

Sec. 554(c)(1)(A)(ii). 111 STAT. 2360 

Sec. 554(d)(1). 111 STAT. 2360 

Sec. 554(d)(3)(B). 111 STAT. 2361 

Sec. 555(a)(1) and (a)(2). 111 STAT. 2361 

Sec. 555(b)(1). 111 STAT. 2361 

Sec. 555(b)(2), (b)(3), (c)(1) and (c)(2). 111 STAT. 2362 

Sec. 557(a) and (b). 111 STAT. 2363 

Sec. 557(d). 111 STAT. 2363 

Sec. 557(b)(z). 111 STAT. 2364 

Public Law 105-160 – National Sea Grant College Program Act, March 6, 1998. 

Sec. 204(c)(4)(C). 112 STAT. 23 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-264 

Public Law 105-178 – Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, June 9, 1998. 

Sec. 502(c)(1). 112 STAT. 424 

Sec. 503(a)(4). 112 STAT. 427 

Sec. 5109(g)(1)(A). 112 STAT. 439 

Sec. 5505(g)(1). 112 STAT. 442 

Public Law 105-185 – Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, June 23, 

1998. 

Sec. 101(d)(1). 112 STAT. 527 

Sec. 1672A(e)(1)(C). 112 STAT. 555 

Sec. 403(b)(1). 112 STAT. 568 

Sec. 618(b)(4). 112 STAT. 607 

Public Law 105-220 – Workforce Investment Act of 1998, August 7, 1998. 

Sec. 242(c)(1)(D). 112 STAT. 1075 

Sec. 243(1)(B). 112 STAT. 1078 

Sec. 243(2)(D)(iii). 112 STAT. 1078 

Sec. 15(a)(1)(C). 112 STAT. 1083 

Sec. 15(a)(1)(E) and (1)(F), 112 STAT. 1083 

Sec. 15(a)(1)(H)(i). 112 STAT. 1083 

Sec. 10(a)(4). 112 STAT. 1111 

Sec. 200(4) and (4)(A) and (4)(B). 112 STAT. 1168 

Sec. 202(b)(2). 112 STAT. 1169 

Sec. 202(b)(4). 112 STAT. 1169 

Sec. 202(b)(5)(B). 112 STAT. 1169 

Sec. 202(b)(7). 112 STAT. 1170 

Sec. 202(c)(1), (c)(2) and (2)(A), (2)(B), and (2)(C). 112 STAT. 1170 

Sec. 202(c)(2)(D). 112 STAT. 1171 

Sec. 202(h)(2)(E) and (2)(F). 112 STAT. 1172 

Sec. 204(b)(3)(B)(i). 112 STAT. 1176 

Sec. 204(b)(3)(B)(ii) and (iii). 112 STAT. 1177 

Sec. 204(b)(4)(A)(i). 112 STAT. 1178 

Sec. 204(b)(5)(A). 112 STAT. 1179 

Sec. 204(b)(17)(B)(i) and (iii). 112 STAT. 1181 

Sec. 303(b)(4)(F). 112 STAT. 1192 

Sec. 401(a)(1). 112 STAT. 1199 

Public Law 105-225 – Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies, and Organizations, August 

12, 1998. 

Sec. 220302(2). 112 STAT. 1463 

Sec. 220503(11). 112 STAT. 1467 

Sec. 220524(8). 112 STAT. 1474 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-265 

Public Law 105-244 – Higher Education Amendments of 1998, October 7, 1998. 

Sec. 131(b). 112 STAT. 1603 

Sec. 141(f)(2). 112 STAT. 1609 

Sec. 206(d). 112 STAT. 1631 

Sec. 402H(b)(1). 112 STAT. 1656 

Sec. 402H(c). 112 STAT. 1656 

Sec. 404G(c). 112 STAT. 1663 

Sec. 603(b)(1), and (b)(2)(A), (B), (C) and (E). 112 STAT. 1777 

Sec. 603(b)(2)(F). 112 STAT. 1778 

Sec. 605(a)(8). 112 STAT. 1781 

Sec. 606(a). 112 STAT. 1781 

Sec. 606(b)(5). 112 STAT. 1781 

Sec.742(c)(1). 112 STAT. 1797 

Sec. 744(c)(3) and (4). 112 STAT. 1798 

Sec. 762(b)(3). 112 STAT. 1802 

Sec. 826(b)(5). 112 STAT. 1816 

Sec. 210(a). 112 STAT. 1832 

Public Law 105-277 – Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1999, 

October 21, 1998 

Sec. 416(b)(1). 112 STAT. 2681-47. 

Sec. 120(c)(1). 112 STAT. 2681-70 

Sec. 124(h). 112 STAT. 2681-74 

Sec. 590. 112 STAT. 2681-210 

Sec. 606(5). 112 STAT. 2681-223 

Sec. 343(a). 112 STAT. 2681-297 

Sec. 485D(a). 112 STAT. 2681-387 

Sec. 2258(a) and (b)(2). 112 STAT. 2681-405 

Sec. 1211(b). 112 STAT 2681-410 

Sec. 301(b). 112 STAT 2681-410 

Sec 220512(o)(4). 112 STAT. 2681-609 

Sec. 1303(b)(2)(E). 112 STAT. 2681-732 

Sec. 2812(b)(1). 112 STAT. 2681-853 

Public Law 105-278 – Charter School Expansion Act of 1998, October 22, 1998. 

Sec. 3(d)(6)(B)(1). 112 STAT. 2686 

Sec. 10305(a)(4)(E). 112 STAT. 2687 

Public Law 105-309 – Technology Administration Act of 1998, October 30, 1998. 

Sec. 8(c)(1). 112 STAT. 2937 

Public Law 105-310 –Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act of 1998, October 30, 

1998. 

Sec. 5351(b)(2). 112 STAT. 2946 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-266 

Public Law 105-332 – Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Amendments of 

1998, October 31, 1998 

Sec. 2(4). 112 STAT. 3077 

Sec. 114(c)(1)(A). 112 STAT. 3090 

Sec. 114(c)(5)(iii)(II). 112 STAT. 3093 

Sec. 114(c)(5)(C). 112 STAT. 3093 

Sec. 114(c)(6)(A). 112 STAT. 3093 

Sec. 118(a)(1)(B) and (C). 112 STAT. 3100 

Public Law105-392 – Health Professions Education Partnerships Act of 1998, November 13, 1998. 

Sec. 751(1)(A)(vii). 112 STAT. 3542 

Sec. 753(a)(2)(B). 112 STAT. 3544 

Sec. 797(a). 112 STAT. 3557 

Sec. 803(a). 112 STAT. 3564 

Sec. 201(e)(3). 112 STAT. 3584 

Sec. 399G(c). 112 STAT. 3593 

Public Law 105-394 – Assistive Technology Act of 1998, November 13, 1998. 

Sec. 104(c)(2)(B). 112 STAT. 3650 

Sec. 211(c) and (c)(1) and (c)(2). 112 STAT. 3654 

Sec. 215(b)(3). 112 STAT. 3656 

Sec. 216(b)(1)(A). 112 STAT. 3656 

Public Law 106-40 – Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act, 

August 5, 1999. 

Sec. 3(a)(H)(vi). 113 STAT. 211 

Sec. 3(a)(H)(vii)(II). 113 STAT. 211 

Sec. 3(a)(H)(xi)(III). 113 STAT. 213 

Sec. 3(a)(H)(xii)(II). 113 STAT. 213 

Public Law 106-65 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, October 5, 1999 

Sec. 723(c)(2). 11e STAT. 696 

Sec. 723(d)(3)(D). 113 STAT. 697 

Sec. 914(c). 113 STAT. 721 

Public Law 106-113 – An Act – Making Consolidated Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending 

September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, November 29, 1999. 

Sec. 526. 113 STAT. 1501A-90 

Sec. 332(a). 113 STAT. 1501A-197 

Sec. 211(A)(2)(E). 113 STAT. 1501A-347 

Sec. 108(b)(3). 113 STAT. 1501A-417 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-267 

Public Law 106-129 – Healthcare Research and Quality Act of 1999, December 6, 1999. 

Sec. 902(a). 113 STAT. 1654 

Sec. 911(a) and (b)(1). 113 STAT. 1656 

Sec. 912(a)(2)(B). 113 STAT. 1656 

Sec. 912(a)(2)(C) and (2)(F). 113 STAT. 1657 

Sec. 912(c)(3). 113 STAT. 1658 

Sec. 915(a)(2). 113 STAT. 1659 

Sec. 916(a)(2). 113 STAT. 1660 

Sec. 916(d)(1). 113 STAT. 1661 

Sec. 921(b)(2)(B). 113 STAT. 1663 

Sec. 923(b)(2). 113 STAT. 1666 

Sec. 924(a)(1) through (a)(2). 113 STAT. 1667 

Sec. 924(b). 113 STAT. 1667 

Sec. 330D(a). 113 STAT. 1671 

Public Law 106-148 – National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999, December 9, 1999. 

Sec. 4(d)(C)(ii)(II) and (III). 113 STAT. 1721 

Public Law 106-170 – Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, December 17, 

1999. 

Sec. 1149(a)(1). 113 STAT. 1887 

Sec. 1149(a)(2)(C). 113 STAT. 1887 

Public Law 106-177 – Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act, March 10, 2000. 

Sec. 103(28). 114 STAT. 35 

Public Law 106-181 – Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, 

April 5, 2000. 

Sec. 508(b)(4)(B). 114 STAT. 140 

Sec, 508(b)(15). 114 STAT. 140 

Public Law 106-193 – Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000, May 2, 2000. 

Sec. 3(e)(3). 114 STAT. 236 

Public Law 106-200 – Trade and Development Act of 2000, May 18, 2000. 

Sec. 506(d)(2). 114 STAT. 304 

Public Law 106-224 – Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000, June 20, 2000 

Sec. 307(e)(1). 114 STAT. 436 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-268 

1.D. Publicizing federal level actions, decisions, and opportunities through inter and intragovernmental information interchanges.

Public Law 104-50 – Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996, 

November 15, 1995. 

Sec. 315. 109 STAT. 455 

Public Law 104-127 – Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 

April 4, 1996. 

Sec. 1658(g)(3). 110 STAT. 1115 

Public Law 104-193 – Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, 

August 22, 1996. 

Sec. 345(a)(j)(1). 110 STAT. 2237 

Sec. 605(2)(D). 110 STAT. 2282 

Public Law 104-324 – Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996, October 19, 1996. 

Sec. 1143. 110 STAT. 3992 

Public Law 105-17 – Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, June 4, 1997. 

Sec. 601(d)(3). 111 STAT. 42 

Sec. 607(e)(2). 111 STAT. 48 

Sec. 613(g)(4)(D). 111 STAT. 79 

Sec. 651(b). 111 STAT. 124 

Sec. 653(c)(3)(D)(vii). 111 STAT. 127 

Sec. 653(c)(3)(F). 111 STAT. 128 

Sec. 671(a)(3)(A). 111 STAT. 135 

Sec. 671(a)(5)(C). 111 STAT. 136 

Sec. 681(a)(2). 111 STAT. 146 

Sec. 681(a)(6). 111 STAT. 147 

Sec. 682(b)(6). 111 STAT. 149 

Sec. 684(b)(2). 111 STAT. 152 

Sec. 685(a). 111 STAT. 152 

Sec. 685(b)(2)(C). 111 STAT. 152 

Sec. 685(b)(2)(D). 111 STAT. 153 

Public Law 105-20 – Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997, June 27, 1997. 

Sec. 1022(6). 111 STAT. 225 

Sec. 1031(b)(2). 111 STAT. 226 

Sec. 1033(b)(2)(C). 111 STAT. 231 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-269 

Public Law 105-178 – Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, June 9, 1998. 

Sec. 5109(g)(1)(C). 112 STAT. 439 

Sec. 6102(1). 112 STAT. 478 

Public Law 105-185 – Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, June 23, 

1998. 

Sec. 202(c)(5). 112 STAT. 532 

Sec. 225(d)(3)(E). 112 STAT. 540 

Sec. 258(e)(3). 112 STAT. 560 

Sec. 618(d). 112 STAT. 607 

Public Law 105-220 – Workforce Investment Act of 1998, August 7, 1998. 

Sec. 122(e)(4)(A). 112 STAT. 970 

Sec. 122(h)(2). 112 STAT. 971 

Sec. 129(b)(2)(A). 112 STAT. 979 

Sec. 134(a)(2)(B)(i). 112 STAT. 991 

Sec. 171(c)(3)(A). 112 STAT. 1033 

Sec. 223(a)(7). 112 STAT. 1067 

Sec. 15(a)(1)(D). 112 STAT. 1083 

Sec. 15(a)(1)(F). 112 STAT. 1083 

Sec. 15(e)(2)(A), (B) and (C). 112 STAT. 1086 

Sec. 15(e)(2)(E), (F). and (G). 112 STAT. 1086 

Sec. 15(e)(3). 112 STAT. 1086 

Sec. 101(a)(7)(A)(v)(II). 112 STAT. 1123 

Sec. 202(b)(8). 112 STAT. 1170 

Public Law 105-244 – Higher Education Amendments of 1998, October 7, 1998. 

Sec. 203(e)(2). 112 STAT. 1627 

Sec. 601(a)(5). 112 STAT. 1775 

Sec. 601(b)(2). 112 STAT. 1775 

Sec. 831(b)(4). 112 STAT. 1820 

Public Law 105-277 – Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 

October 21, 1998. 

Sec. 704(b)(15) and (15)(A), and (B).112 STAT. 2681-675. 

Public Law 105-278 – Charter School Expansion Act of 1998, October 22, 1998. 

Sec. 3(b)(1)(C). 112 STAT. 2683 

Sec. 3(c)(2)(C). 112 STAT. 2684 

Sec. 3(c)(2)(M). 112 STAT. 2684 

Sec. 3(d)(1)(7). 112 STAT. 2685 

Sec. 3(d)(3)(A) and (B). 112 STAT. 2685 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-270 

Public Law 105-310 –Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act of 1998, October 30, 

1998. 

Sec. 5353(b)(3) and (b)(3)(A). 112 STAT. 2948 

Public Law 105-332 – Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Amendments of 

1998, October 31, 1998 

Sec. 113(c)(3)(B). 112 STAT. 3089 

Sec. 114(c)(4). 112 STAT. 3092 

Public Law 105-394 – Assistive Technology Act of 1998, November 13, 1998. 

Sec. 101(b)(2)(A)(i) through (iii)(I). 112 STAT. 3635 

Sec. 101(b)(2)(A)(iii)(III). 112 STAT. 3636 

Sec. 101(b)(2)(B)(iii)(III). 112 STAT. 3636 

Sec. 101(b)(F)(i). 112 STAT. 3640 

Sec. 104(c)(2)(A) and (A)(i) through (iv). 112 STAT. 3650 

Public Law 106-25 – Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, April 29, 1999. 

Sec. 4(e). 113 STAT. 49 

Public Law 106-53 – Water Resources Development Act of 1999, August 17, 1999. 

Sec. 538. 113 STAT. 349 

Public Law 106-129 – Healthcare Research and Quality Act of 1999, December 6,1999. 

Sec. 924(a)(5). 113 STAT. 1667 

Public Law 106-224 – Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000, June 20, 2000 

Sec. 243(d)(4). 114 STAT. 417 

II. Classification based on the means congress prescribed in the statute

II.A Enacting a law to (1) broadly facilitate public information access to government 

information and/or (2) encourage agency dissemination of government information to the public.

Public Law 104-127 – Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 

April 4, 1996. 

Sec. 1408(b)(6). 110 STAT. 1158 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-271 

Public Law 104-134 – Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, April 26, 

1996 

Sec. 331(b) and (c). 110 STAT. 1321-209 

Sec. 3720E(a). 110 STAT. 1321-373 

Sec. 3720E(b)(2)(A) and (B). 110 STAT. 1321-373 

Public Law 104-142 – Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act, May 13, 

1996. 

Sec. 4. 110 STAT. 1330 

Public Law 104-329- United States Commemorative Coin Act of 1996, October 20, 1996. 

Sec. 201(b)(5). 110 STAT. 4012 

Public Law 105-17 – Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, June 4, 1997. 

Sec. 661(c)(2)(D). 111 STAT. 131 

Sec. 661(f)(2)(C). 111 STAT. 133 

Sec. 685(d) and (d)(1). 111 STAT. 153 

Sec. 687(b)((2)(D). 111 STAT. 155 

Public Law 105-20 – Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997, June 27, 1997. 

Sec. 1033(b)(2)(C)(ii). 111 STAT. 231 

Public Law 105-78 – Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, November 13, 1997. 

Sec. 49B(c)(2)(B)(iii). 111 STAT. 1520 

Public Law 105-115 – Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, November 21, 

1997. 

Sec. 551(c), (c)(1) and (c)(2). 111 STAT. 2358 

Public Law 105-178 – Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, June 9, 1998. 

Sec. 1212(o)(B) and (o)(C). 112 STAT. 196 

Sec. 3015(e)(1) and (1)(A) and (D). 112 STAT. 360 

Sec. 506(b)(1). 112 STAT. 433 

Sec. 506(b)(6). 112 STAT. 434 

Public Law 105-185 – Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, June 23, 

1998. 

Sec. 246(2)(A). 112 STAT. 556 

Sec. 258(d)(3)(D). 112 STAT. 559 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-272 

Public Law 105-203 – National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act of 1998, July 21, 

1998. 

Sec. 3(a)(1). 112 STAT. 679 

Public Law 105-206 – Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, July 22, 1998 

Sec. 1224(b)(1). 112 STAT. 837 

Public Law 105-220 – Workforce Investment Act of 1998, August 7, 1998. 

Sec. 136(d)(3)(A) and (B). 112 STAT 1003 

Sec. 160(1). 112 STAT. 1020 

Sec. 212(c)(2)(A) and (B). 112 STAT. 1066 

Sec. 15(a)(1)(G). 112 STAT. 1083 

Sec. 15(b)(2). 112 STAT. 1084 

Sec. 10(b)(2). 112 STAT. 1111 

Sec. 12(f)(1). 112 STAT. 1112 

Sec. 202(a)(1)(C). 112 STAT. 1168 

Public Law 105-225 – Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies, and Organizations, August 

12, 1998. 

Sec. 150902(1). 112 STAT. 1395 

Sec. 152502(2). 112 STAT. 1415 

Sec. 152703(1). 112 STAT. 1418 

Sec. 153502(3). 112 STAT. 1425 

Public Law 105-244 – Higher Education Amendments of 1998, October 7, 1998. 

Sec. 131(d)(E). 112 STAT. 1604 

Sec. 609(b)(8). 112 STAT. 1783 

Public Law 105-277 – Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1999, 

October 21, 1998 

Sec. 1333(a) and (c). 112 STAT. 2681-785 

Public Law 105-310 –Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act of 1998, October 30, 

1998. 

Sec. 5353(b)(3)(B). 112 STAT. 2948 

Public Law 105-332 – Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Amendments of 

1998, October 31, 1998 

Sec. 113(c)(3)(A). 112 STAT. 3089 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-273 

Public Law 105-392 – Health Professions Education Partnerships Act of 1998, November 13, 1998. 

Sec. 201(b)(5). 112 STAT. 3582 

Public Law 106-40 – Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act, 

August 5, 1999. 

Sec. 3(a)(H)(v)(IV). 113 STAT. 211 

Public Law 106-53 – Water Resources Development Act of 1999, August 17, 1999. 

Sec. 202. 113 STAT. 285 

Public Law 106-68 – Centennial of Flight Commemoration Act Amendment, October 6, 1999. 

Sec. 1(d)(1)(C) and (d)(2). 113 STAT. 982 

Sec. 1(d)(6). 113 STAT. 982 

Public Law 106-71 – Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act, October 12, 1999. 

Sec. 2(a)(14)(C). 113 STAT. 1033 

Sec. 2(b)(1)(E). 113 STAT.1034 

Public Law 106-113 – An Act – Making Consolidated Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending 

September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, November 29, 1999. 

Sec 4712(a)(2). 113 STAT. 1501A-573 

Public Law 106-129 – Healthcare Research and Quality Act of 1999, December 6, 1999. 

Sec. 901(b)(2). 113 STAT. 1654 

Sec. 924(a)(3) and (a)(4). 113 STAT. 1667 

Public Law 106-181 – Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, 

April 5, 2000. 

Sec. 44721(d) and (d)(1). 114 STAT. 150 

Sec. 44721(d)(2) through (d)(4). 114 STAT. 151 

Sec. 44721(g)(1)(A). 114 STAT. 151 

Sec. 44721(g)(4). 114 STAT. 152 

Public Law 106-200 – Trade and Development Act of 2000, May 18, 2000. 

Sec. 105(d). 114 STAT. 255 

Public Law 106-224 – Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000, June 20, 2000 

Sec. 144(3)(B)(i). 114 STAT. 391 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-274 

Public Law 106-245 – Radiation exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000, July 10, 2000 

Sec. 417C(b)(3). 114 STAT. 509 

II.B. Establishing and maintaining a general government information facility, source, network, 

or other resource, both pre-electronic and electronic, to assist, inform, enlighten, or educate the 

public. 

Public Law 104-59 – National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, November 28, 1995. 

Sec. 358(b)(2). 109 STAT. 625. 

Public Law 104-182– Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, August 6, 1996. 

Sec. 119(g)(2). 110 STAT. 1650 

Public Law 105-78 – Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998. 

Sec.409B(c)(2)(B)(iv). 111 STAT. 1520 

Public Law 105-115 – Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, November 21, 

1997. 

Sec. 113(j)(1)(A) and (j)(2). 111 STAT. 2311 

Public Law 105-135 – Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997, December 2, 1997. 

Sec. 29(g)(2)(B)(ii)(VII). 111 STAT. 2614 

Public Law 105-168 – Birth Defects Prevention Act of 1998, April 21, 1998. 

Sec. 2(b)(2). 112 STAT. 44 

Public Law 105-178 – Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, June 9, 1998. 

Sec. 1212(o)(A). 112 STAT. 196 

Sec. 5109(e)(1) and (2). 112 STAT. 439 

Sec. 5109(g)(1)(B). 112 STAT. 439 

Sec. 5505(g)(1). 112 STAT. 442 

Public Law 105-220 – Workforce Investment Act of 1998, August 7, 1998. 

Sec. 242(c)(1)(A). 112 STAT. 1074 

Public Law 105-244 – Higher Education Amendments of 1998, October 7, 1998. 

Sec. 841(b)(4) and (b)(5). 112 STAT. 1821 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-275 

Public Law 105-277 – Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1999, 

October 21, 1998 

Sec. 485D(g)(2). 112 STAT. 2681-388 

Sec. 704(b)(15)(C). 112 STAT. 2681-675 

Public Law 105-392 – Health Professions Education Partnerships Act of 1998, November 13, 1998. 

Sec. 201(b)(8)(A), (B) and (D). 112 STAT. 3582 

Public Law 105-394 – Assistive Technology Act of 1998, November 13, 1998. 

Sec. 104(c)(1)(A). 112 STAT. 3648 

Sec. 104(c)(1)(B)(i). 112 STAT. 3648 

Public Law 106-65 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, October 5, 1999 

Sec. 723(b)(3). 113 STAT. 696 

Public Law 106-78 – Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000. 

Sec. 913(b)(2). 113 STAT. 1205 

Public Law 106-148 – National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999, December 9, 1999. 

Sec. 4(d)(C)(ii)(I). 113 STAT. 1721 

Sec. 7(a)(1). 113 STAT. 1723 

II.C. Establishing, making available and accessible, and periodically updating the data or 

information content of a specific information service, system, or other resource impacting the 

public.

Public Law 105-92 – Savings Are Vital to Everyone's Retirement Act of 1997, November 19, 1997. 

Sec. 517(a)(4). 111 STAT. 2141 

Public Law 105-185 – Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, June 23, 

1998. 

Sec. 258(e)(2)(C). 112 STAT. 560 

Sec. 258(e)(3). 112 STAT. 560 

Public Law 105-244 – Higher Education Amendments of 1998, October 7, 1998. 

Sec. 120(f)(2)(C). 112 STAT. 1599 

Sec. 757. 112 STAT. 1800 

Sec. 210(b)(1). 112 STAT. 1832 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-276 

Public Law 106-113 – An Act – Making Consolidated Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending 

September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, November 29, 1999. 

Sec. 211(A)(2)(C). 113 STAT. 1501A-347 

INDEX OF STATUTES BY PUBLIC LAW NUMBER 

Entries in this section of the index are in order by public law number, followed by the title of the law 

and the date of enactment. Under each law, the section pertaining to information dissemination is 

identified, followed by the appropriate Statutes-at-Large citation. The information provided should 

permit a user to locate the pertinent portion of any of the laws identified. 

104th Congress

Public Law 104-50 – Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996, 

November 15, 1995. 

Sec. 315. 109 STAT. 455. I.D 

Sec. 345. 109 STAT. 459. I.C 

Public Law 104-59 – National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, 

November 28, 1995. 

Sec. 358(b)(2). 109 STAT. 625. II.B 

Public Law 104-127 – Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 

April 4, 1996. 

Sec. 261(a)(5)(C). 110 STAT. 972. I.C 

Sec. 747(e)(4)(C)(ii). 110 STAT. 1126. I.B 

Sec. 1658(g)(3). 110 STAT. 1115. I.D 

Sec. 1408(b)(6). 110 STAT. 1158. II.A 

Public Law 104-134 –Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, April 26, 

1996 

Sec. 331(b) and (c). 110 STAT. 1321-209. II.A 

Sec. 520(b)(3). 110 STAT. 1321-250. I.C 

Sec. 3720E(a). 110 STAT. 1321-373. II.A 

Sec. 3720E(b)(2)(A) and (B). 110 STAT. 1321-373. II.A 

Public Law 104-142 – Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act, May 13, 

1996. 

Sec. 4. 110 STAT. 1330. II.A 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-277 

Public Law 104-182 – Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, August 6, 1996. 

Sec. 119(f)(4)(D). 110 STAT. 1649. I.A 

Sec. 119(g)(2). 110 STAT 1650. II.B 

Public Law 104-193 – Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, 

August 22, 1996. 

Sec. 413(c). 110 STAT. 2153. I.C 

Sec. 345(a)(j)(1). 110 STAT. 2237. I.D 

Sec. 605(2)(D). 110 STAT. 2282. I.D 

Sec. 731(a)(1). 110 STAT. 2305. I.C 

Public Law 104-262 – Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, October 9, 1996. 

Sec. 334(h). ref. 7320. 110 STAT. 3203. I.C 

Sec. 334(b)(3). ref. 7320. 110 STAT. 3204. I.C 

Public Law 104-297 – Sustainable Fisheries Act, October 11, 1996. 

Sec. 404(b)(4). 110 STAT. 3610. I.C 

Sec. 404(d). 110 STAT. 3610. I.C 

Sec. 401(a). 110 STAT. 3617. I.C 

Public Law 104-324 – Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996, October 19, 1996. 

Sec. 203. 110 STAT. 3907. I.C 

Sec. 1143. 110 STAT. 3992. I.D 

Public Law 104-329- United States Commemorative Coin Act of 1996, October 20, 1996. 

Sec. 201(b)(5). 110 STAT. 4012. II.A 

105th Congress

Public Law 105-17 – Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, June 4, 1997. 

Sec. 601(d)(3). 111 STAT. 42. I.D 

Sec. 607(d)(1). 111 STAT. 48. I.C 

Sec. 607(e)(2). 111 STAT. 48. I.D 

Sec. 611(i)(5)(D). 111 STAT. 60. I.C 

Sec. 613(g)(4)(D). 111 STAT. 79. I.D 

Sec. 635(a)(6). 111 STAT. 109. I.C 

Sec. 651(a)(6)(G). 111 STAT. 124. I.C 

Sec. 651(b). 111 STAT. 124. I.D 

Sec. 653(c)(3)(D)(vii). 111 STAT. 127. I.D 

Sec. 653(c)(3)(F). 111 STAT. 128. I.D 

Sec. 661(c)(2)(D). 111 STAT. 131. II.A 

Sec. 661(f)(2)(C). 111 STAT. 133. II.A 

Sec. 671(a)(3)(A). 111 STAT. 135. I.D 

Sec. 671(a)(5)(C). 111 STAT. 136. I.D 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-278 

Sec. 672(c)(2)(D). 111 STAT. 138. I.C 

Sec. 672(d)(2)(E). 111 STAT. 138. I.C 

Sec. 673(d)(2)(E). 111 STAT. 141. I.C 

Sec. 673(d)(2)(G). 111 STAT. 141. I.C 

Sec. 673(d)(2)(J). 111 STAT. 141. I.C 

Sec. 681(a)(1). 111 STAT. 146. I.C 

Sec. 681(a)(2). 111 STAT. 146. I.D 

Sec. 681(a)(3). 111 STAT. 146. I.C 

Sec. 681(a)(6). 111 STAT. 147. I.D 

Sec. 682(a). 111 STAT. 149. I.B 

Sec. 682(b)(6). 111 STAT. 149. I.D 

Sec. 684(b)(2). 111 STAT. 152. I.D 

Sec. 685(a). 111 STAT. 152. I.D 

Sec. 685(b)(2)(C). 111 STAT. 152. I.D 

Sec. 685(b)(2)(D). 111 STAT. 153. I.D 

Sec. 685(d) and (d)(1). 111 STAT. 153. II.A 

Sec. 687(b)(2)(D). 111 STAT. 155. II.A 

Sec. 687(b)(2)(F) and (G). 111 STAT. 155. I.C 

Sec. 687(c)(3) and (4). 111 STAT. 155. I.C 

Public Law 105-20 – Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997, June 27, 1997. 

Sec. 1022(6). 111 STAT. 225. I.D 

Sec. 1031(b)(2). 111 STAT. 226. I.D 

Sec. 1033. 111 STAT. 230. I.B 

Sec. 1033(b)(2)(C). 111 STAT. 231. I.D 

Sec. 1033(b)(2)(C)(ii). 111 STAT. 231. II.A 

Public Law 105-78 – Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, November 13, 1997. 

Sec. 49B(c)(2)(B)(ii). 111 STAT. 1520. I.C 

Sec. 49B(c)(2)(B)(iii), 111 STAT. 1520. II.A 

Sec.409B(c)(2)(B)(iv). 111 STAT. 1520. II.B 

Public Law 105-92 – Savings Are Vital to Everyone's Retirement Act of 1997, November 19, 1997. 

Sec. 517(a)(4). 111 STAT. 2141. II.C 

Public Law 105-114 – Veterans' Benefits Act of 1997, November 21, 1997. 

Sec. 202(b)(2)(D). 111 STAT. 2283. I.A 

Public Law 105-115 – Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, November 21, 

1997. 

Sec. 113(j)(1)(A). 111 STAT. 2311. II.B 

Sec. 113(j)(2). 111 STAT. 2311. II.B 

Sec. 506(b)(2)(B). 111 STAT. 2309. I.C 

Sec. 506(b)(3)(D). 111 STAT. 2310. I.C 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-279 

Sec. 506(d)(1). 111 STAT. 2310. I.C 

Sec. 551(a). 111 STAT. 2356. I.C 

Sec. 551(b)(3) and (b)(4). 111 STAT. 2357. I.C 

Sec. 551(b)(6) and (b)(6)(A)(ii). 111 STAT. 2357. I.C 

Sec. 551(b)(6)(A)(v). 111 STAT. 2357. I.C 

Sec. 551(b)(6)(A)(vi). 111 STAT. 2357. I.C 

Sec. 551(c), (c)(1) and (c)(2). 111 STAT. 2358. II.A 

Sec. 552(a), (a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B). 111 STAT. 2358. I.C 

Sec. 552(b)(4). 111 STAT. 2358. I.C 

Sec. 553(a) and (a)(1). 111 STAT. 2359. I.C 

Sec. 553(b). 111 STAT. 2359. I.C 

Sec. 554(a) and (b). 111 STAT. 2359. I.C 

Sec. 554(c)(1). 111 STAT. 2359. I.C 

Sec. 554(c)(1)(A)(ii). 111 STAT 2360. I.C 

Sec. 554(d)(1). 111 STAT. 2360. I.C 

Sec. 554(d)(3)(B). 111 STAT. 2361. I.C 

Sec. 555(a)(1) and (a)(2). 111 STAT. 2361. I.C 

Sec. 555(b)(1). 111 STAT. 2361. I.C 

Sec. 555(b)(2), (b)(3), and (c)(1) and (c)(2). 111 STAT. 2362. I.C 

Sec. 557(a) and (b). 111 STAT. 2363. I.C 

Sec. 557(d). 111 STAT. 2363. I.C 

Sec. 557(b)(z). 111 STAT. 2364. I.C 

Public Law 105-135 – Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997, December 2, 1997. 

Sec. 29(g)(2)(B)(ii)(VII). 111 STAT. 2614. II.B 

Sec. 501(b)(4)(C). 111 STAT. 2622. I.B 

Sec. 709. 111 STAT. 2638. I.A 

Public Law 105-160 – National Sea Grant College Program Act, March 6, 1998. 

Sec. 204(c)(4)(C). 112 STAT. 23. I.C 

Public Law 105-168 – Birth Defects Prevention Act of 1998, April 21, 1998. 

Sec. 2(b)(2). 112 STAT. 44. II.B 

Public Law 105-178 – Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, June 9, 1998. 

Sec. 1212(o)(A). 112 STAT. 196. II.B 

Sec. 1212(o)(B) and (o)(C). 112 STAT. 196. II.A 

Sec. 3015(e)(1) and (1)(A) and (D). 112 STAT. 360. II.A 

Sec. 502(c)(1). 112 STAT. 424. I.C 

Sec. 503(a)(4). 112 STAT. 427. I.C 

Sec. 506(b)(1). 112 STAT. 433. II.A 

Sec. 506(b)(6). 112 STAT. 434. II.A 

Sec. 5109(e)(1) and (2). 112 STAT. 439. II.B 

Sec. 5109(g)(1)(A). 112 STAT. 439. I.C 

Sec. 5109(g)(1)(B). 112 STAT. 439. II.B 

Sec. 5109(g)(1)(C). 112 STAT. 439. I.D 

Sec. 5505 (c)(2)(F). 112 STAT. 441. I.B 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-280 

Sec. 5505(g)(1). 112 STAT. 442. I.C and II.B 

Sec. 6102(1). 112 STAT. 478. I.D 

Public Law 105-185 – Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, June 23, 

1998. 

Sec. 101(d)(1). 112 STAT. 527. I.C 

Sec. 202(c)(5). 112 STAT. 532. I.D 

Sec. 225(d)(3)(E). 112 STAT. 540. I.D 

Sec. 1672A(e)(1)(C). 112 STAT. 555. I.C 

Sec. 246(2)(a). 112 STAT. 556. II.A 

Sec. 258(d)(3)(D). 112 STAT. 559. II.A 

Sec. 258(e)(2)(C). 112 STAT. 560. II.C 

Sec. 258(e)(3). 112 STAT. 560. I.D and II.C 

Sec. 403(b)(1). 112 STAT. 568. I.C 

Sec. 403(c). 112 STAT. 568. I.B 

Sec. 403(c)(4). 112 STAT. 569. I.B 

Sec. 403(d). 112 STAT. 569. I.B 

Sec. 403(d)(2) and (d)(4). 112 STAT. 569. I.B 

Sec. 403(f). 112 STAT. 569. I.B 

Sec. 408(c). 112 STAT. 575. I.B 

Sec. 618(b)(4). 112 STAT. 607. I.C 

Sec. 618(d). 112 STAT. 607. I.D 

Public Law 105-203 – National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act of 1998, July 21, 

1998. 

Sec. 3(a)(1). 112 STAT. 679. II.A 

Public Law 105-206 – Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, July 22, 1998 

Sec. 1224(b)(1). 112 STAT. 837. II.A 

Public Law 105-220 – Workforce Investment Act of 1998, August 7, 1998. 

Sec. 160(1). 112 STAT. 1020. II.A 

Sec. 171(c)(3)(A). 112 STAT. 1033. I.D 

Sec. 212(c)(2)(A) and (B). 112 STAT. 1066. II.A 

Sec. 223(a)(7). 112 STAT. 1067. I.D 

Sec. 242(c)(1)(A). 112 STAT. 1074. II.B 

Sec. 242(c)(1)(D). 112 STAT. 1075. I.C 

Sec. 243(1)(B). 112 STAT. 1078. I.C 

Sec. 243(2)(D)(iii). 112 STAT. 1078. I.C 

Sec. 15(a)(1)(C). 112 STAT. 1083. I.C 

Sec. 15(a)(1)(D). 112 STAT. 1083. I.D 

Sec. 15(a)(1)(E), 112 STAT. 1083. I.C 

Sec. 15(a)(1)(F), 112 STAT. 1083. I.C and I.D 

Sec. 15(a)(1)(G). 112 STAT. 1083. II.A 

Sec. 15(a)(1)(H)(i). 112 STAT. 1083. I.C 

Sec. 15(b)(2). 112 STAT. 1084. II.A 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-281 

Sec. 15(e)(2)(A), (B) and (C). 112 STAT. 1086. I.D 

Sec. 15(e)(2)(E), (F) and (G). 112 STAT. 1086. I.D 

Sec. 15(e)(3). 112 STAT. 1086. I.D 

Sec. 10(a)(4). 112 STAT. 1111. I.C 

Sec. 10(b)(2). 112 STAT. 1111. II.A 

Sec. 12(f)(1). 112 STAT. 1112. II.A 

Sec. 16. 112 STAT. 1114. I.B 

Sec. 101(a)(7)(A)(v)(II). 112 STAT. 1123. I.D 

Sec. 200(4), (4)(A) and (4)(B). 112 STAT. 1168. I.C 

Sec. 202(a)(1)(C). 112 STAT. 1168. II.A 

Sec. 202(b)(2). 112 STAT. 1169. I.C 

Sec. 202(b)(4). 112 STAT. 1169. I.C 

Sec. 202(b)(5)(B). 112 STAT. 1169. I.C 

Sec. 202(b)(7). 112 STAT. 1170. I.C 

Sec. 202(b)(8). 112 STAT. 1170. I.D 

Sec. 202(c)(1). 112 STAT. 1170. I.C 

Sec. 202(c)(2) and (2)(A), (2)(B), and (2)(C). 112 STAT. 1170. I.C 

Sec. 202(c)(2)(D). 112 STAT. 1171. I.C 

Sec. 202(h)(2)(E) and (2)(F). 112 STAT. 1172. I.C 

Sec. 204(b)(3)(B)(i). 112 STAT. 1176. I.C 

Sec. 204(b)(3)(B)(ii) and (B)(iii). 112 STAT. 1177. I.C 

Sec. 204(b)(4)(A)(i). 112 STAT. 1178. I.C 

Sec. 204(b)(5)(A). 112 STAT. 1179. I.C 

Sec. 204(b)(17)(B)(i) and (iii). 112 STAT. 1181. I.C 

Sec. 303(b)(4)(F). 112 STAT. 1192. I.C 

Sec. 401(a)(1). 112 STAT. 1199. I.C 

Public Law 105-225 – Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies, and Organizations, August 

12, 1998. 

Sec. 150902(1). 112 STAT. 1395. II.A 

Sec. 152502(2). 112 STAT. 1415. II.A 

Sec. 152703(1). 112 STAT. 1418. II.A 

Sec. 153502(3). 112 STAT. 1425. II.A 

Sec. 220302(2). 112 STAT. 1463. I.C 

Sec. 220503(11). 112 STAT. 1467. I.C 

Sec. 220524(8). 112 STAT. 1474. I.C 

Public Law 105-244 – Higher Education Amendments of 1998, October 7, 1998. 

Sec. 120(e)(1). 112 STAT. 1598. I.B 

Sec. 120(f)(2)(C). 112 STAT. 1599. II.C 

Sec. 120(f)(3)(A)(ii). 112 STAT. 1599. I.B 

Sec. 131(b). 112 STAT. 1603. I.C 

Sec. 131(d)(E). 112 STAT. 1604. II.A 

Sec. 141(f)(2). 112 STAT. 1609. I.C 

Sec. 203(e)(2). 112 STAT. 1627. I.D 

Sec. 206(d). 112 STAT. 1631. I.C 

Sec. 402H(b)(1). 112 STAT 1656. I.C 

Sec. 402H(c). 112 STAT. 1656. I.C 

Sec. 404G(c). 112 STAT. 1663. I.C 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-282 

Sec. 486(a). 112 STAT. 1741. I.A 

Sec. 486(c)(2) and (c)(3). 112 STAT. 1742. I.A 

Sec. 490(c)(j)(2). 112 STAT. 1755. I.A 

Sec. 601(a)(5). 112 STAT. 1775. I.D 

Sec. 601(b)(2). 112 STAT. 1775. I.D 

Sec. 603(b)(1), and (b)(2)(A), (B), (C) and (E). 112 STAT. 1777. I.C 

Sec. 603(b)(2)(F). 112 STAT. 1778. I.C 

Sec. 605(a)(8). 112 STAT. 1781. I.C 

Sec. 606(a). 112 STAT. 1781. I.C 

Sec. 606(b)(5). 112 STAT. 1781. I.C 

Sec. 609(b)(8). 112 STAT. 1783. II.A 

Sec. 742(c)(1). 112 STAT. 1797. I.C 

Sec. 744(c)(3) and (4). 112 STAT. 1798. I.C 

Sec. 757. 112 STAT. 1800. II.C 

Sec. 762(b)(3). 112 STAT. 1802. I.C 

Sec. 810(b). 112 STAT. 1808. I.A 

Sec. 826(b)(5). 112 STAT. 1816. I.C 

Sec. 831(b)(4). 112 STAT. 1820. I.D 

Sec. 841(b)(4) and (b)(5). 112 STAT. 1821. II.B 

Sec. 210(a). 112 STAT. 1832. I.C 

Sec. 210(b)(1). 112 STAT. 1832. II.C 

Public Law 105-277 – Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 

October 21, 1998. 

Sec. 416(b)(1). 112 STAT. 2681-47. I.C 

Sec. 120(c)(1). 112 STAT. 2681-70. I.C 

Sec. 124(h). 112 STAT. 2681-74. I.C 

Sec. 590. 112 STAT.2681-210. I.C 

Sec. 606(5). 112 STAT. 2681-223. I.C 

Sec. 343(a). 112 STAT. 2681-297. I.C 

Sec. 485(D)(a). 112 STAT. 2681-387. I.C 

Sec. 485D(g)(2). 112 STAT. 2681-388. II.B 

Sec. 2258(a) and (b)(2). 112 STAT. 2681-405. I.C 

Sec. 301(b). 112 STAT. 2681-410. I.C 

Sec. 1211(b). 112 STAT. 2681-410. I.C 

Sec. 220512(o)(4). 112 STAT. 2681-609. I.C 

Sec. 704(b)(15) and (15)(A), (15)(B) and (15)(C). 112 STAT. 2681-675. I.D 

Sec. 704(b)(15)(C). 112 STAT. 2681-675. II.B 

Sec. 1303(b)(2)(E). 112 STAT. 2681-732. I.C 

Sec. 1333(a) and (c). 112 STAT. 2681-785. II.A 

Sec. 2812(b)(1). 112 STAT. 2681-853. I.C 

Public Law 105-278 – Charter School Expansion Act of 1998, October 22, 1998. 

Sec. 3(b)(1)(C). 112 STAT. 2683. I.D 

Sec. 3(c)(2)(C). 112 STAT. 2684. I.D 

Sec. 3(c)(2)(M). 112 STAT. 2684. I.D 

Sec. 3(d)(1)(7). 112 STAT. 2685. I.D 

Sec. 3(d)(2)(7). 112 STAT. 2685. I.B 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-283 

Sec. 3(d)(3)(A) and (B). 112 STAT. 2685. I.D 

Sec. 3(d)(6)(A). 112 STAT. 2685. I.B 

Sec. 3(d)(6)(B)(1). 112 STAT. 2686. I.C 

Sec. 10305(a)(4)(E). 112 STAT. 2687. I.C 

Sec. 10305(a)(5). 112 STAT/ 2687. I.B 

Public Law 105-309 – Technology Administration Act of 1998, October 30, 1998. 

Sec. 8(c)(1). 112 STAT. 2937. I.C 

Public Law 105-310 –Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act of 1998, October 30, 

1998. 

Sec. 5351(b)(2). 112 STAT. 2946. I.C 

Sec. 5353(b)(3) and (b)(3)(A). 112 STAT. 2948. I.D 

Sec. 5353(b)(3)(B). 112 STAT. 2948. II.A 

Public Law 105-332 – Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Amendments of 

1998, October 31, 1998 

Sec. 2(4). 112 STAT. 3077. I.C 

Sec. 113(c)(3)(A). 112 STAT. 3089. II.A 

Sec. 113(c)(3)(B). 112 STAT. 3089. I.D 

Sec. 114(c)(1)(A). 112 STAT. 3090. I.C 

Sec. 114(c)(4). 112 STAT. 3092. I.D 

Sec. 114(c)(5)(iii)(II). 112 STAT. 3093. I.C 

Sec. 114(c)(5)(C). 112 STAT. 3093. I.C 

Sec. 114(c)(6)(A). 112 STAT. 3093. I.C 

Sec. 118(a)(1)(B) and (C). 112 STAT. 3100. I.C

Public Law 105-392 – Health Professions Education Partnerships Act of 1998, November 13, 1998. 

Sec. 751(1)(A)(vii). 112 STAT. 3542. I.C 

Sec. 753(a)(2)(B). 112 STAT. 3544. I.C 

Sec. 797(a). 112 STAT. 3557. I.C 

Sec. 803(a). 112 STAT. 3564. I.C 

Sec. 201(b)(5). 112 STAT. 3582. II.A 

Sec. 201(b)(8)(A), (B) and (D). 112 STAT. 3582. II.B 

Sec. 201(e)(3). 112 STAT. 3584. I.C 

Sec. 399G(c). 112 STAT. 3593. I.C 

Public Law 105-394 – Assistive Technology Act of 1998, November 13, 1998. 

Sec. 101(b)(2)(A)(i) through (iii)(I). 112 STAT. 3635. I.D 

Sec. 101(b)(2)(A)(iii)(III). 112 STAT. 3636. I.D 

Sec. 101(b)(2)(B)(iii)(III). 112 STAT. 3636. I.D 

Sec. 101(b)(F)(i). 112 STAT. 3640. I.D 

Sec. 104(c)(1)(A). 112 STAT. 3648. II.B 

Sec. 104(c)(1)(B)(i). 112 STAT. 3648. II.B 

Sec. 104(c)(2)(A) and (A)(i) through (iv). 112 STAT. 3650. I.D 

Sec. 104(c)(2)(B). 112 STAT. 3650. I.C 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-284 

Sec. 211(c) and (c)(1) and (c)(2). 112 STAT. 3654. I.C 

Sec. 215(b)(3). 112 STAT. 3656. I.C 

Sec. 216(b)(1)(A). 112 STAT. 3656. I.C 

106th Congress

Public Law 106-25 – Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, April 29, 1999. 

Sec. 4(e). 113 STAT. 49. I.D 

Public Law 106-40 – Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act, 

August 5, 1999. 

Sec. 3(a)(H)(v)(IV). 113 STAT. 211. II.A 

Sec. 3(a)(H)(vi). 113 STAT. 211. I.C 

Sec. 3(a)(H)(vii)(II). 113 STAT. 211. I.C 

Sec. 3(a)(H)(xi)(III). 113 STAT. 213. I.C 

Sec. 3(a)(H)(xii)(II). 113 STAT. 213. I.C 

Public Law 106-50 – Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999, 

August 17, 1999. 

Sec. 604(a)(2) and (3). 113 STAT. 249. I.B 

Public Law 106-53 – Water Resources Development Act of 1999, August 17, 1999. 

Sec. 202. 113 STAT. 285. II.A 

Sec. 538. 113 STAT. 349. I.D 

Public Law 106-65 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, October 5, 1999 

Sec. 723(b)(3). 113 STAT. 696. II.B 

Sec. 723(c)(2). 113 STAT. 696. I.C 

Sec. 723(d)(3)(D). 113 STAT. 697. I.C 

Sec. 914(c). 113 STAT. 721. I.C 

Public Law 106-68 – Centennial of Flight Commemoration Act Amendment, October 6, 1999. 

Sec. 1(d)(1)(C)and (d)(2). 113 STAT. 982. II.A 

Sec. 1(d)(6). 113 STAT. 982. II.A 

Public Law 106-71 – Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act, October 12, 1999. 

Sec. 2(a)(14)(C). 113 STAT. 1033. II.A 

Sec. 2(b)(1)(E). 113 STAT.1034. II.A 

Public Law 106-78 – Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000. 

Sec. 913(b)(2). 113 STAT. 1205. II.B 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-285 

Public Law 106-113 – An Act – Making Consolidated Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending 

September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, November 29, 1999. 

Sec. 526. 113 STAT. 1501A-90. I.C 

Sec. 332(a). 113 STAT. 1501A-197. I.C 

Sec. 211(A)(2)(E). 113 STAT. 1501A-347. I.C 

Sec. 211(A)(2)(C). 113 STAT. 1501A-347. II.C 

Sec. 108(b)(3). 113 STAT. 1501A-417. I.C 

Sec. 4712(a)(2). 113 STAT. 1501A-573. II.A 

Public Law 106-129 – Healthcare Research and Quality Act of 1999, December 6, 1999. 

Sec. 901(b)(2). 113 STAT. 1654. II.A 

Sec. 902(a). 113 STAT. 1654. I.C 

Sec. 911(a) and (b)(1). 113 STAT. 1656. I.C 

Sec. 912(a)(2)(B). 113 STAT. 1656. I.C 

Sec. 912(a)(2)(C) and (2)(F). 113 STAT.1657. I.C 

Sec. 912(c)(3). 113 STAT. 1658. I.C 

Sec. 915(a)(2). 113 STAT. 1659. I.C 

Sec. 916(a)(2). 113 STAT. 1660. I.C 

Sec. 916(d)(1). 113 STAT. 1661. I.C 

Sec. 921(b)(2)(B). 113 STAT. 1663. I.C 

Sec. 923(b)(2). 113 STAT. 1666. I.C 

Sec. 924(a)(1) through (a)(2). 113 STAT. 1667. I.C 

Sec. 924(a)(3) and (a)(4). 113 STAT. 1667. II.A 

Sec. 924(a)(5). 113 STAT. 1667. I.D 

Sec. 924(b). 113 STAT. 1667. I.C 

Sec. 330D(a). 113 STAT. 1671. I.C 

Public Law 106-148 – National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999, December 9, 1999. 

Sec. 4(d)(C)(ii)(I). 113 STAT. 1721. II.B 

Sec. 4(d)(C)(ii)(II) and (III). 113 STAT. 1721. I.C. 

Sec. 7(a)(1). 113 STAT. 1723. II.B 

Public Law 106-170 – Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, December 17, 

1999. 

Sec. 1149(a)(1). 113 STAT 1887. I.C 

Sec. 1149(a)(2)(B)(i). 113 STAT. 1887. I.A 

Sec. 1149(a)(2)(C). 113 STAT. 1887. I.C 

Public Law 106-177 – Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act, March 10, 2000. 

Sec. 103(28). 114 STAT. 35. I.C 

Public Law 106-181 – Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, 

April 5, 2000. 

Sec. 508(b)(4)(B). 114 STAT. 140. I.C 

Sec. 508(b)(15). 114 STAT. 140. I.C 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-286 

Sec. 44721(d) and (d)(1). 114 STAT. 150. II.A 

Sec. 44721(d)(2) through (d)(4). 114 STAT.151. II.A 

Sec. 44721(g)(A). 114 STAT. 151. II.A 

Sec. 44721(g)(4). 114 STAT. 152. II.A 

Public Law 106-193 – Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000, May 2, 2000. 

Sec. 3(e)(3). 114 STAT. 236. I.C 

Public Law 106-200 – Trade and Development Act of 2000, May 18, 2000. 

Sec. 105(d). 114 STAT. 255. II.A 

Sec. 506(d)(2). 114 STAT. 304. I.C 

Public Law 106-224 – Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000, June 20, 2000 

Sec. 144(3)(B)(i). 114 STAT. 391. II.A 

Sec. 243(d)(4). 114 STAT. 417. I.D 

Sec. 307(e)(1). 114 STAT. 436. I.C 

Public Law 106-245 – Radiation exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000, July 10, 2000 

Sec. 417C(b)(3). 114 STAT. 509. II.A 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-287 

APPENDIX 34. NCLIS COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT WEB PAGE TABLE OF 

CONTENTS AS OF JANUARY 26, 2001 

COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF 

PUBLIC INFORMATION DISSEMINATION168

June 2000 - March 2001 

Information on the NCLIS study of the planned closure of NTIS undertaken in the October 1999 - 

March 2000 timeframe is available at "Preliminary Assessment of NTIS Closure." The 

Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination that NCLIS is presently 

undertaking incorporates the next stage of the NTIS study. 

1. FINAL REPORT AND APPENDICES 

o A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination, 

Final Report, Volume 1 (January 26, 2001) 

(Executive Summary, Report, and Appendices 1 through 10) 

o A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination, 

Final Report, Volume 2: Legislative and Regulatory Proposals (Not Yet Available)

(Appendices 11 through 12) 

[Volume 2 contains the Commission's legislative proposal: The Public 

Information Resources Reform Act of 2001 (Appendix 11) and suggested 

revisions to the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB Circular A-130 (Appendix 

12). This volume will be issued by March 1, 2001.] 

o A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination,

Final Report, Volume 3: Supplementary Reference Materials (Not Yet Available)

(Appendices 13 through 34) 

[Volume 3 contains supplementary reference materials, including White Papers, 

Panel Reports, survey results and bibliographies.] 

o A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination, 

Final Report, Volume 4: Compilation of Recent Federal Statutes Pertaining to Public 

Information Dissemination (Not Yet Available) 

(Appendix 35) 

[Volume 4 contains A Compilation of Recent Federal Statutes Pertaining to 

Public Information Dissemination. The Index to the Compilation is available in 

Appendix 32. This volume will be issued in March 2001.] 

 

168 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen34.pdf. The Assessment web page is 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.html. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-288 

o Executive Summary

o Appendices 

Volume 1 (Appendices 1-10) 

 Appendix 1. Letter from Senator John McCain to NCLIS Chairperson Martha 

B. Gould — June 12, 2000 

 Appendix 2. Letter from NCLIS Chairperson Martha B. Gould to Senator John 

McCain — June 27, 2000, replying to letter of June 12, 2000 

 Appendix 3. Letter from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman to NCLIS Chairperson 

Martha B. Gould — July 17, 2000 

 Appendix 4. Letter from NCLIS Chairperson Martha B. Gould to Senator 

Joseph I. Lieberman — August 7, 2000, replying to letter of July 17, 2000 

 Appendix 5. Letter from NCLIS Chairperson Martha B. Gould to Secretary of 

Commerce Norman Y. Mineta — August 1, 2000 

 Appendix 6. Letter from Secretary of Commerce Norman Y. Mineta to NCLIS 

Chairperson Martha B. Gould — September 1, 2000, replying to letter of August 

1, 2000 

 Appendix 7. Letter from NCLIS Chairperson Martha B. Gould to Secretary of 

Commerce Norman Y. Mineta — October 10, 2000 

 Appendix 8. Letter from Secretary of Commerce Norman Y. Mineta to NCLIS 

Chairperson Martha B. Gould — November 21, 2000, replying to letter of 

October 10, 2000 

 Appendix 9. NCLIS Press Release Announcing the Comprehensive Assessment of 

Public Information Dissemination — June 26, 2000 

 Appendix 10. NCLIS Principles of Public Information — June 29, 1990 

Volume 2 - The Legislative and Regulatory Proposals (Appendices 11-12) 

 Appendix 11. The Public Information Resources Reform Act of 2001 

 Appendix 12. Suggested Revisions to The Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB 

Circular A-130 

Volume 3 - Supplementary Reference Materials (Appendices 13-34) (Not Yet 

Available) 

 Appendix 13. NCLIS Study Plan Outline — July 25, 2000 

 Appendix 14. Some Issues/Concerns to Address — July 25, 2000 

 Appendix 15. Some Important Information Age Paradigms shifts and Their 

Associated Myths, and Realities — written by F. Woody Horton, NCLIS 

Consultant 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-289 

 Appendix 16. Government Information Life Cycle Management — written by F. 

Woody Horton, NCLIS Consultant 

 Appendix 17. An Invited Retrospective Appraisal of the 1982 NCLIS Public 

Sector/Private Sector Task Force Report — written by Robert M. Hayes, 

Chairman, NCLIS Public Sector/Private Sector Task Force and Member, 

NCLIS Group of Experts 

 Appendix 18. The World Wide Library — written by Christopher Burns, 

Member, NCLIS Group of Experts 

 Appendix 19. FirstGov: A Preliminary Assessment — written by William H. 

Price, Member, NCLIS Group of Experts 

 Appendix 20. Linking The Information Life Cycle Concept With Digital 

Libraries — written by Satadip Dutta, Department of Computer Science, 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) and 

Reviewed by Edward A. Fox and Shalin Urs 

 Appendix 21. Creating the Magic of Information — written by Paul G. 

Zurkowski, Member, NCLIS Group of Experts 

 Appendix 22. Study Panels and Group of Experts Memberships 

 Appendix 23. Panel One: Final Report on A Reformed NTIS Business Model for 

the Internet Age 

 Appendix 24. Panel Two: Final Report on Federal Agency Needs for Central 

Information Services and Information Management 

 Appendix 25. Panel Three: Final Report on Citizen, Business, Lower Levels of 

Government, Library, and Other Needs for Public Information Products and 

Services 

 Appendix 26. Panel Four: Final Report on Renewed and Strengthened 

Partnerships Between the Public and Private Sectors for Public Information 

Dissemination 

 Appendix 27. Survey of Selected Federal Agency Policies, Programs and 

Practices Relating to Public Information Dissemination — conducted by F. 

Woody Horton and Sarah Kadec, NCLIS consultants 

 Appendix 28. Survey of the Public Information Needs of Disadvantaged and 

Special Populations — conducted by F. Woody Horton and Sarah Kadec, 

NCLIS consultants 

 Appendix 29. Public Information Resources Maps — compiled by the Federal 

Library and Information Center Committee (FLICC) and the Government 

Documents Roundtable (GODORT) of the American Library Association (ALA) 

 Appendix 30. European Commission Green Paper on Public Sector Information 

in the Information Society 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-290 

 Appendix 31. A Bibliography of Government Information Dissemination 

Resources — compiled by Sarah Kadec and Barbara Whiteleather, NCLIS 

Consultants 

 Appendix 32. A Bibliography of National Information Policies — compiled by 

Dean Toni Carbo and associates, Graduate School of Information Sciences, 

University of Pittsburgh 

 Appendix 33. Index to a Compilation of Recent Federal Statutes Pertaining to 

Public Information Dissemination 

 Appendix 34. NCLIS Comprehensive Assessment Web Page Table of Contents as 

of January 26, 2001 

Volume 4 - Compilation of Recent Federal Statutes Pertaining to Public Information 

Dissemination 

 Appendix 35. A Compilation of Recent Federal Statutes Pertaining to Public 

Information Dissemination 

2. CONGRESSIONAL AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMUNICATIONS NOT IN THE 

APPENDICES 

o NCLIS letter to Senate and House Majority and Minority Staff Directors - July 7, 2000 

o Letter from Representatives Constance Morella and Tom Davis to GAO re: NTIS - 

August 1, 2000 (in PDF format) 

o Federal Information Policy Act of 2000 

introduced 7/27/00 by Congressman Davis, referred to Committee Government Reform. 

Access thru Thomas, Bill & Summary Status for 106th Congress 2d Session, type in H.R. 

5024 

o House Appropriations Committee directed GAO study of SuDocs Functions and 

Programs - July 27, 2000 

o FirstGov.gov Hearings: FirstGov.gov: Is it a Good Idea?; House Committee on 

Government Reform - October 2, 2000 

3. STUDY GOALS, ORGANIZATION, PLANS, MEETINGS, & SCHEDULES NOT IN THE 

APPENDICES 

o NCLIS Public Meeting Scheduled - 342 Dirksen Bldg., Monday Dec. 4, 2000, 1-5PM 

o Study Status Report - as of August 12, 2000 

o Study Status Report - as of September 5, 2000 

o Study Status Report - as of September 20, 2000 

o Study Status Report - as of October 5, 2000 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-291 

o Study Status Report - as of October 19, 2000 

o Panel Meetings Announced for September 2000

o Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination Reforms - September 

2000 (PowerPoint® Presentation; best viewed in Microsoft® Internet Explorer) 

o NCLIS Commission Meeting Announced for November 15, 2000 

4. STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS 

o Comments from NCLIS Public Meeting - December 4, 2000 

National Association of the Deaf (NAD) - Nancy J. Bloch 

Federal Library and Information Center Committee (FLICC) - Susan M. Tarr 

American Library Association (ALA) - Nancy Kranich 

Government Documents Roundtable (ALA/GODORT) - Ann Miller 

American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) - Mary Alice Baish 

Printing Industries of America (PIA) - Ben Cooper 

Dan Duncan, Consultant

OMB Watch - Patrice McDermott 

o Other Stakeholder Comments to NCLIS 

American Library Association to NCLIS re draft Executive Summary and draft 

Proposed Legislation Excerpts documents; November 27, 2000 

Ken Wasch, President SIIA; December 8, 2000 

Daniel S. Jones, President, NewsBank, Inc.; December 8, 2000 

The American Council of the Blind submitted by Krista Dubroff, Policy Analyst ; 

December 8, 2000 

The Archivist of the United States John W. Carlin; December 8, 2000 

Morton Bahr, President, Communications Workers of America (AFL-CIO, CLC); 

December 14, 2000 

GladysAnn Wells, Director, Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records; 

December 15, 2000 

Paul A. De Guisti, Director, Washington Affairs, The McGraw-Hill Companies; 

January 2, 2001 

Edward J. Black, President and CEO, Computer and Communications Industry 

Association (CCIA); January 3, 2001 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-292 

Keith M. Fiels, President, Chief Officers of State Library Agencies (COSLA); January 

3, 2001 

Prudence S. Adler, Associate Executive Director, ARL; Mary Alice Baish, Acting 

Washington Affairs Representative, AALL; Lynne Bradley, Director, Office of 

Government Relations, ALA; Ann E. Miller, Chair, GODORT, ALA; January 3, 2001 

Nancy M. Bolt, Assistant Commissioner for Libraries, Colorado Department of 

Education; January 4, 2001 

Public Printer Michael F. DiMario; January 4, 2001 

Clara P. McLeod, Chair, Cartographic Users Advisory Council (CUAC) 

5. PANEL AND GROUP OF EXPERTS COMMUNICATIONS 

o PowerPoint Presentation, Peter Urbach, NCLIS Mtg. - November 15, 2000 

o PowerPoint Presentation, Kurt Molholm, NCLIS Mtg. - November 15, 2000 

6. STUDY-RELEVANT ARTICLES, REPORTS AND DIRECTIVES, PUBLICATIONS, 

STUDIES, AND CONFERENCES 

Additional references are included in bibliographies in Appendices 31 and 32 in Section 1 above 

A. Articles 

o The Electronic Envelope, by William H. Price, Information Management Review, Vol. 2, 

No. 2, Fall 1986 

o The Issue of Access to Federal Information, Kurt N. Molholm, October 1990 

o Premises for Developing World Wide Web Strategies, by Kurt Molholm, ICSTI Forum: 

Quarterly Newsletter of the International Council for Scientific and Technical Information, 

No 27, March 1998 

o Information Overload, by Eric Yoder, Government Executive, August 6, 2000 

o Out Front on Access, Editorial, Federal Computer Week, August 7, 2000 

o First Gov: All Bark, No Bite by Patrice McDermott, Federal Computer Week, August 14, 

2000 

o NTIS' Continuing Punishment, by J. Timothy Sprehe, Federal Computer Week, August 

28, 2000 

o The Business Impact of Government-wide Portals, by Patricia B. Wood, Access America, 

September 7, 2000 

o Print No More: U.S. Code, Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register, by 

Timothy L. Coggins, Virginia Lawyer, Vol. 49, No. 3, October 2000 (in PDF format) 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-293 

o Your Tax Dollars at Work: The Internet Should Serve as the U.S. Government's 

Primary Archive, Barbara Quint, Information Today, Vol. 17, No. 9, October 2000 

o Industry Frets Over FirstGov, William Matthews, Federal Computer Week, October 3, 

2000 

o Filegate.gov, by David Corn, Wired Magazine, Vol. 8, No. 11, November 15, 2000 

B. Reports and Directives 

o Public Sector/Private Sector Interaction in Providing Information Services 

A reprint with editorial changes and supplementary material of an NCLIS report 

originally published in February 1982. 

o Prepared Statements of Daniel P. O'Mahony, Brown University, on Public Access to 

Government Information in the 21st Century 

Testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration - Tuesday, June 

18, 1996, 9:00 a.m.; 301 Russell Senate Office Building 

Prepared Statement before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration - 

Tuesday, June 18, 1996; 301 Russell Senate Office Building 

Responses to Questions Submitted for the Record 

o Goals for Revising U.S.C. Title 44 to Enhance Public Access to Federal Government 

Information - Developed by the Inter-Association Work Group on Government 

Information Policy - May 1997 

o Concepts for Reform of Title 44; Eric Peterson, Joint Committee on Printing, U.S. 

Congress - September 12, 1997 

o Government Information Dissemination Programs: Proposals For Change And Related 

Initiatives; Association of Research Libraries (ARL) - May 1998 

o IRM and the Freedom of Information Act, Key Excerpts from Presidential and Attorney 

General Directives - 1999 

o IRM & the Freedom of Information Act, Dept. of Justice, by Own Ambur - November 

20, 2000 

C. Studies 

o Information Technology and the Conduct of Research: The User's View, National 

Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine Panel 

chaired by Donald N. Langenberg - 1989 

o Scientific and Technical Information Policy Implementation Under OMB Circular A130: Report of Agency Findings and Recommendations, A-130 Implementation 

Guidelines Group for Scientific and Technical Information - May 1995 (in PDF format) 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-294 

o Permanent Public Access to Electronic Federal Government Information, NAS/CSTB 

Draft Concept Paper; Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National 

Academy of Sciences - Revised May 12, 1999 

o The Facts of the Matter: Finding, Understanding, and Using Information About Our 

Physical World, Workshop Report on a Future Information Infrastructure for the 

Physical Sciences - May 30-31, 2000 

o Value of Information and Information Services: How Decision Makers Value 

Information, Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration - August 

1999 

o Public Library Internet Services: Impacts on the Digital Divide, Stage I Final Report, by 

Charles R. McClure, and John Carlo Bertot - August 20, 2000 

o International Union of Pure and Applied Physics Working Group on Electronic 

Communication: Final Report, Martin Blume, Chair - September 2000 (in PDF format) 

o Who's Not Online, Pew Internet and American Life Project - September 25, 2000 

o The Impacts of the Internet on Public Library Use: An Analysis of the Current 

Consumer Market for Library and Internet Services, by Eleanor Jo Rodger and George 

D'Elia, Urban Libraries Council - October 2000 

o Performance Measures for Agency Websites by C. McClure, J. T. Sprehe, and K. 

Eschenfelder, study commissioned by GPO, DTIC, and EIA - October 2000 

o The Role of Government in a Digital Age, by J. Stiglitz, P. Orszag, and J. Orszag, study 

commissioned by Computer and Communications Industry Association - October 12, 

2000 

o HANDLES and PURLS—A Comparison, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) – 

October 20, 2000 

o How Much Information? School of Information Management and Science, University of 

California at Berkeley - November 22, 2000 

D. Conferences 

o Fifth Solomons Interagency Conference On Public Access Proceedings; 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources - January 27-28, 1994 

o Framework for a New Federal Information Dissemination and Access Program - 

Chicago Conference 1993 

Association of Research Libraries (ARL) 

o Group of Eight Okinawa Charter on Global Information Society and Global Service 

Trust Fund Project - July 22, 2000 

o Workshop Report on a Future Information Infrastructure for the Physical Sciences - 

May 31-31, 2000 (in PDF format) 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-295 

o 21st Annual National Online Meeting & IOLS 2000 (PowerPoint®

 Internet Explorer) 

Grey Literature in Government: Mixing Up Black & White by Bonnie Carroll (IIA) and 

Bonnie Klein (Defense Technical Information Center; May 16-18, 2000 (New York, NY) 

o The Myth and Reality of Electronic Publishing Teleconference, Wednesday, November 

15, 2000; 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time 

o NARA is holding a conference on "Digital Strategies - 2000", November 16 - 17, 2000, at 

the National Archives at College Park, Maryland. The program is available at 

http://www.nara.gov/program.html 

o The Santa Fe Convention for the Open Archives Initiative 

E Correspondence 

o Letter from the Department of Commerce to the American Library Association 

Washington Office - August 11, 1988 

o Letter from Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA) to GSA re FirstGov 

Activity - July 20, 2000 

o Letter from the Superintendent of Documents to Directors of Federal Depository 

Libraries - August 25, 2000 

7. WEB SITE LINKS 

Listed below are links to web sites that organize and facilitate public access to a wide range of 

federal government information, provide public information locator tools, provide online databases, 

offer special insights for how to efficiently and effectively access government information, or 

illuminate policy, legal, security, privacy, or similar kinds of issues and concerns related to 

information access and dissemination. These links are cited here for research and study purposes. 

Listing them here does not necessarily imply NCLIS endorsement. 

A. Sites Under Development 

o FirstGov; A U.S. Government website that will provide free rapid access to government 

information and services to the public. 

o FirstGov: Information for Webmasters - September 20, 2000 

o Consumer.gov; U.S. Government website that will provide consumer information to the 

public, covering such areas as health, safety, security protections, availability, and so 

forth. 

o FirstGov.gov Hearings: FirstGov.gov: Is it a Good Idea?; House Committee on 

Government Reform - October 2, 2000 

o Audio-Video URL for House FirstGov.gov (You will need a media player in order to 

access this clip.) 

o FirstGov: Not Yet Prime-Time; About.com Web Search Guide - Sept. 25, 2000 

o Impartiality Of E-Government Portal Questioned; NewsBytes - Oct. 2, 2000 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-296 

o FirstGov Comments - Government Information. Technology Committee, GODORT, and 

Government Information Subcommittee of the American Library Association (ALA) - 

Oct. 18, 2000 

B. Sites Operational 

(1) Government Sites (including government web-based search utilities, e.g. search engines, data 

miners, etc.) 

o Access America links 

o The Access Board - Standards for Electronic & Info. Tech. re RAA of 1998 S508 

o American Memory 

o Archival Information Locator (NAIL) 

o CENDI 

o Council for Excellent in Government Report on e-Gov by Hart-Teeter 

o Depository Library Materials Not Found On the Web - Current Research Results 

 http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/GODORT/2k0508missing.html 

o DOTbot 

o e-Government; An Experiment in Interactive Legislation 

o EPA Library Web Link Initiatives 

o Falling through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide, NTIA, 1999 

o Federal IT Accessibility Initiative - Section 508 of Rehabilitation Act 

o Federal R&D Project Summaries 

o Federal Webmasters Forum 

EGov & CIO Links 

Home Page 

Meeting Schedule 

o FedWorld 

o Government Information Locator Service (GILS) 

o GPO Access 

o GrayLIT Network

o Legislative Process - The House 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-297 

o Legislative Process - The Senate 

o Library of Congress - Thomas 

o A List of Reports Pursuant to Clause 2, Rule III of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives House Document 106-37; January 6, 1999 - Referred to the Committee 

on House Administration and ordered to be printed. 

o Map Stats 

o National Academy Web Site, key recent STI reports: 

1. A Question of Balance: Private Rights and Public Interests in Scientific and 

Technical Databases (1999); 

2. Preserving Scientific Data in our Physical Universe: A New Strategy for Archiving 

our Nation's Scientific Information Resources (1995); and 

3. Bits of Power: Issues of Global Access to Scientific Data (1997). 

o Rules for The House 

o U.S. Courts 

U.S. Courts - Directory of Electronic Public Access Services (PACER) 

o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Web Metadata Inventory; Improving Access to 

EPA's Public Information 

o U.S. Supreme Court 

o Web-Based Federal Agency Consumer Complaint Handling (in PDF format) 

o World Wide Web Home Page Guidelines and Best Practices, WWW Federal 

Consortium, 1996 

(2) General Search Engines 

o AltaVista 

o Excite 

o Go Network 

o Go-to.com 

o Google 

o GovernmentConnection.com; Government Web Site Directory Product 

o GovernmentGuide.com - America Online (AOL) 

o GovSpot 

o Home.mining.com 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-298 

o HotBot 

o LookSmart 

o Lycos 

o Netscape

o Netscape's News Search 

o Northern Light 

o Snap.com 

o Webcrawler 

o Yahoo! 

(3) Academic, Public Interest, Association, and Other Sites 

o American Society of Access Professionals 

o Association of Knowledgework Home Page 

o Association of Public Data Users (APDU) Home Page 

o Federal Web Locator, Villanova University 

o The GODORT (Government Documents Round Table of the American Library 

Association) Fed Docs Task Force's Frequently Used Sites Related to U.S. Federal 

Government Information 

o GovBot, University of Massachusetts 

o Inter-Association Working Group on Government Information Policy (IAWG) - UC 

Berkeley Library host site, containing 'Federal Information Access Act of 1998' 

proposed legislation and other material 

o Librarea - Active Worlds, Virtual (3-D) Libraries Experimental Program - Nov. 6, 2000 

o Meta-Subject Index to Government Information, GEM State November 15, 2000 

o Northeast Document Conservation Center, Handbook for Digital Projects: A 

Management Tool for Preservation and Access - Dec. 13, 2000 

o OMB Watch - Easy Access to Federal Information Policy - Sept. 19, 2000 

o U.S. Federal Government Agencies Directory Search Engine, Louisiana State University 

o Washburn University School of Law 

U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination is published in 4 volumes. 

Volume 1 is available in electronic form at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol1.pdf and 

in print. It contains the executive summary, the report and Appendices 1 through 10. 

Volume 2 is available in electronic form at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol2.pdf and 

in print. It contains Appendices 11 and 12, the Legislative and Regulatory Proposals. 

Volume 3 is available only in electronic form at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol3.pdf. 

It contains Appendices 13 through 34, the Supplementary Reference Materials. 

Volume 4 is available only in electronic form at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol4.pdf. 

It contains Appendix 35, Compilation of Recent Statutes Relating to Public Information 

Dissemination. 

The Commission web page containing other documents related to A Comprehensive Assessment 

of Public Information Dissemination is at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.html. 

U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1110 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005-3552 

Telephone: 202-606-9200, Fax: 202-606-9203; Web: www.nclis.gov